Birkenhead County Court | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

1 invoice and 1 letter about the secret Court application I’m not allowed to write about that cost Wirral Council £535.20

I’m going to write a story now to show you how difficult it is to do investigative journalism in this country due to the legal framework here, as there are details I know about this story which is would be unlawful for me to publish.

There are two documents associated with this story so first I have to explain the background as to what they are and why I got them. The first is an invoice dated 13th January 2014 to Wirral Council from Lees Solicitors to Wirral Council for the sum of £535.20. This is for:

36 minutes preparation for a hearing at £160/hour 36 minutes which is £96 (+ VAT of £19.20) = £115.20

Counsel’s fee £350 (+VAT of £70) = £420

Grand total: £535.20

Due to legal restrictions *(*don’t you just love this country sometimes and their restrictions on the press?) although I know the names of the parties (such as the Applicant and Respondent) in this case, I’m not allowed to publish either of them on this blog. I cannot tell you who (although I know) the Applicant or Respondent are. In fact I’d better not tell you the date of the hearing, just in case you use that to somehow figure out who the Applicant and Respondent are. As far as I can tell (maybe I’m wrong) I’m not allowed to get a copy of or publish the Court Order (if there is one) that resulted from the hearing to consider the application.

This is openness and transparency in the local courts British style.

So why are Wirral Council paying £535.20 to Lees Solicitors for the legal work outlined in the invoice below? I think I’ve gone as far as I can do in answering that question as the rest would be educated guesswork.

Ironically I get more openness and transparency from Laura Quarry of the Family Court at Birkenhead than I get from Wirral Council in this matter in her letter to me dated 27th October 2014 (also below that the Wirral Council invoice). Mind you it is not hard to be more open and transparent than Wirral Council is it?

Laura Quarry states “Thank you for your letter dated 24th October 2014. This case is a Private Law Family matter. Therefore as you are not a party to this application, we cannot provide you with the documents you have requested. The documents you have requested refer to a civil matter and the case number you have provided is not a civil case number.

If you can provide us with a civil case number we can process your request. Please find enclosed your fee.”

If anyone would like to translate exactly what that means by leaving a comment, please do! I think I understand what she means although I may be wrong!

So which department is involved at Wirral Council in Family Court matters that the press aren’t allowed to write about? Why the Children and Young Peoples Department at Wirral Council of course! Who else?

In a recent change a few years ago, the press can be present at court hearings in the Family Court, however we’re still not allowed to report the details. The Family Court run to a different set of rules to the rest of the court system you see.

Letter from Birkenhead County Court dated 27th October 2014

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.

Expense claim forms for Councillor Brian Kenny (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014

Writing this, I had better declare that many years ago in Liverpool Councillor Brian Kenny gave us both a gift of a red plastic post box in I think in 2010 (it’s only a few inches high) as part of the lobbying that the Communication Workers Union were doing at the time of people like myself and Leonora. Although this falls into the trivial category, journalism ethics means I’d better state that at the start as I don’t want people thinking I’m being too kind or not objective enough to former Councillor Brian Kenny because of something he gave us four years ago. I will point out that gift was completely unconnected to my work as a journalist. However this is probably more openness and accountability than you will get from most politicians (who were recently told at a Planning Committee meeting about Tranmere Rovers that they only had to declare gifts received in the last twelve months)!

When I picked up the expenses claim forms to scan in for former Councillor Brian Kenny, at first I thought I must have picked up a batch which was for more than one councillor as compared to other councillors there seemed a lot of it. I know he was the Cabinet Member for the Environment, but his expenses claim forms go on and on and on and on and on like the waves crashing against the shore on the Wirral coastline.

As probably readers of this blog are already aware, former Councillor Brian Kenny lost his seat in Birkenhead and Tranmere in the May 2014 elections to the Green Party’s Councillor Pat Cleary.

I have only seen Brian Kenny twice since the elections. Once was at the meeting where Councillor Steve Foulkes became Mayor of Wirral in June, the other time was when I was at the Birkenhead County Court offices when I was requesting copies of court records on Wirral Council’s possession order (granted in February 2014 effective from February 2015) for Fernbank Farm. Before I start getting diverted into interesting anecdotes about a former councillor I had better show you first the expenses forms.

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 1

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 2

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 3

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 4

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 5

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 6

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 7

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 8

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 9

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 10

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 11

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 12

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 13

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 14

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 15

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 16

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 17

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 18

Cllr Brian Kenny expenses claim 2013 2014 page 19

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Horses or 100 houses at Fernbank Farm? Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to list it for housing

Councillor Phil Davies and Graham Burgess at a meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority on the 13th June 2014

Today was the second meeting of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. The agenda and reports can be read on Knowsley Council’s website. Item 19 was “Liverpool City Region Strategic Local Investment Plan (2014-17) Housing Sites” and had in its appendices a list of housing sites that are currently in the pre planning stage.

This particular entry in appendix 3 (which can be found on page 124 of the reports pack) caught my eye and is below.

Site	Potential Total Units	Comments
Moreton (Wirral)	Approximately 100 dwellings	Cabinet resolution on 7 November 2013 to defer decision for disposal until the outcomes of legal proceedings for the relocation of the existing tenant are known. A court order dated 13 February 2014 granted a Possession Order to the Council which provided tenant with six months to relocate. The Council has since offered to extend this period to 12 months from the date of the court order. No current resolution, however, to dispose of site.

The Cabinet resolution of 7th November 2013 in relation to Fernbank Farm was (3) the decision on land at Manor Drive be deferred and reconsidered at the next scheduled meeting of the Cabinet when the outcome of legal proceedings will be known. The legal proceedings didn’t deal with relocation of the existing tenants but merely Wirral Council’s claim for a possession order.

The court order dated 13th February 2014 gave twelve months, not six as stated in the report before the possession order had effect. The Council hasn’t “offered to extend this period to 12 months” as that’s the date in the court order!

A copy of the court order is below. So who wrote the comments in the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority report which got the history of what had happened so wrong?

Possession Order (February 2014)

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

2 different opinions on what regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 means

This is going to be a rather long and detailed piece about whether Wirral Council’s eviction notice for Fernbank Farm was valid (or in other words lawful). It is something that Wirral Council and I have a difference of opinion on. I have numbered these paragraphs for ease of reference in any comments people might wish to make.

1. On the 8th August 2012, Wirral Council started a case in the Birkenhead County Court requested a possession order for the land known as Fernbank Farm at Sandbrook Lane, Moreton. The defendants were two trustees of the Upton Park Pony Owners Association and are called Mrs Kane and a Mrs Woodley.

2. The statement of truth to Wirral Council’s claim and particulars of claim was signed on the 5th August 2013 by Surjit Tour.

3. Attached to Wirral Council’s claim form were particulars of claim and a map detailing the land the matter was in relation to, which was 10.12 acres. The particulars of claim outlined the history between Wirral Council and the defendants. The history was that Wirral Council had entered into a lease of the land with the two defendants on the 29th July 2008. This fixed term lease expired on July 2011 and became a monthly periodic tenancy. Rent was paid by the defendants of £4,200 a year payable by equal monthly instalments.

4. On the 13th July 2012, Wirral Council served a notice on the two tenants. The notice served on each tenant were identical and were both of the form which is form one in Schedule 2 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004. This form is headed “LANDLORD’S NOTICE ENDING A BUSINESS TENANCY WITH PROPOSALS FOR A NEW ONE”.

5. Regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 state “The form with the number shown in column (1) of Schedule 1 to these Regulations is prescribed for use for the purpose shown in the corresponding entry in column (2) of that Schedule.” The prescribed purpose for the form that Wirral Council used is stated as “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).” “Act” refers to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

6. According to the notice, if a new tenancy was not agreed between Wirral Council and the defendants before 31st May 2013, then the defendants had the right to apply to the court to order the grant of a new tenancy. If no agreement was reached and no application made then the tenancy would end on the 31st May 2013 (unless Wirral Council agreed to extend the deadline).

7. The form itself which contains the words (attach or insert proposed terms of the new tenancy) was accompanied with Wirral Council’s proposals for a new tenancy. Wirral Council’s offer was to increase the rent to £4,500 and charge £500 for legal fees.

8. Before the deadline of 31st May 2013, Mrs Kane wrote to Wirral Council agreeing different terms to that which were proposed. She agreed to no increase in the rent (£4,200 instead of £4,500) and for a waiver of legal fees for reasons outlined in her letter. Wirral Council did not agree her proposed terms.

9. On the 27th September 2012, Wirral Council’s Cabinet (comprising of ten Labour councillors) discussed an item called “Local Development Framework – Core Strategy – Publication of Proposed Submission Draft”. The minutes reflect the following concern about one of the recommendations expressed by a Councillor Pat Hackett “Councillor Pat Hackett raised concerns that planning policy was being revoked which could have implications on greenbelt land. He asked Officers to take all necessary steps to try to ensure that the greenbelt was not eroded.”

Despite Councillor Pat Hackett’s concerns, the Cabinet agreed the following recommendation (which was recommendation four out of nine agreed): “recommends to the Council that the Interim Planning Policy be revoked, to allow decisions to be determined in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan, the Regional Spatial Strategy (until it is revoked) and the National Planning Policy Framework and to allow sites within the previously restricted areas to contribute towards the ongoing housing land supply;”.

10. A meeting of all of Wirral Council councillors (except three who had sent their apologies) met on the 15th October 2012 to consider the Cabinet’s recommendation. An objection to the Cabinet minute (Local Development Framework for Wirral – Core Strategy – Publication of Proposed Submission Draft) had been received. This objection was proposed by Councillor Stuart Kelly and seconded by Councillor Dave Mitchell. This objection (if passed) would’ve deleted recommendation 4 and replaced it with a new recommendation 4: “(4) Council, therefore, requires that the LDF policies retain the principles and policies currently outlined within the current interim planning policy for new housing development for the purposes of development control and regeneration.”. The matter was not debated and there was a vote on the objection. Twenty-six councillors voted in favour of the objection and thirty-six councillors against (with the Mayor abstaining). The voting was split along party political lines. The twenty-six councillors who voted in favour of the objection were the Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors (apart from the Mayor who abstained). The thirty-six councillors who voted against the objection were Labour councillors. The objection was therefore lost and in mid-October 2012 Wirral Council’s planning policy changed.

11. Wirral Council’s position, which in July 2012 had been stated in the eviction notice unequivocally as “I am not opposed to granting you a new tenancy” to “I am opposed to granting you a new tenancy”. Mr Dickenson told those at the fast track trial that answered that he had been told not to engage in discussions with the tenants between November 2012 and May 2013.

12. Wirral Council’s change of position was not communicated to the tenants. If the landlord is opposed to the granting of a new tenancy then the regulations require that a different form (form 2) should be used which has very different wording to form 1. Wirral Council could have (in either October or November 2012) sent the tenants a new eviction notice and explained to the tenants that their position had changed. However they did not, leading the tenants to believe that Wirral Council still wanted to renew the tenancy. When questioned Wirral Council maintain that there is no legal mechanism to withdraw their earlier eviction notice.

13. Wirral Council asserted in their particulars of claim that as a result of the eviction notice that the “tenancy had been terminated in accordance with the law and the Claimant is therefore entitled to possession”.

14. There are a number of questions that arise however. If Wirral Council genuinely were not opposed to granting a new tenancy, why was a new tenancy not agreed between Wirral Council and the defendants between July and October of 2012? Does Wirral Council’s later change of heart in October 2012 render the earlier eviction notice of July 2012 invalid as they did not send out another?

15. Various court cases have determined the questions that need to be asked to determine whether eviction notices are valid or invalid. In a decision of the United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) [2012] UKUT 20 (LC) paragraph 42 of the judgement of George Bartlett QC, President stated:

Mr Barnes submitted that, save in a few exceptional circumstances, a failure to comply with a procedural requirement in relation to something such as the content of a notice will not invalidate the notice if either (a) the non-compliance is insubstantial so that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement or (b) the non-compliance has been waived or (c) the non-compliance does not result in any significant detriment to the other party. He relied for this submission on R v. Home Secretary, ex p Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354. Mr Baatz said that Jeyeanthan did not provide the right test, because it was concerned with a failure to comply with a statutory procedural requirement and not, as here, a failure going to jurisdiction. The correct approach in relation to statutory notices in respect of property was that set out by the Court of Appeal in the later decision of Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd [2002] 1 EGLR 61. This simply required asking two questions: what does the statute require? and does the notice fulfil those requirements?

16. Regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 states “The form with the number shown in column (1) of Schedule 1 to these Regulations is prescribed for use for the purpose shown in the corresponding entry in column (2) of that Schedule.”

Schedule 1 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 states in relation to form one that Wirral Council used that the purpose for which it is to be used is “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).”

17. The date the eviction notice was sent was 13th July 2012. The date the eviction notice stated that the tenancy would end was 31st May 2013. If the serving of the eviction notice ended the tenancy on the 31st May 2013 and its purpose is defined in statute as “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).” surely on the date the eviction notice ends the tenancy (31st May 2013) then the landlord has to not be opposed to the grant of a new tenancy on the date the tenancy ends?

18. If the regulations stated that the purpose of the eviction notice was “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord was not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).” then I would agree with Wirral Council’s position that the eviction notice brought the tenancy to an end. However Wirral Council’s position on the 31st May 2012 was that it was opposed to the grant of a new tenancy.

19. Therefore does this render the eviction notice invalid and therefore it did not end the tenancy on the 31st May 2013? If so then the monthly periodic tenancy is still in effect and the tenants are also in lawful occupation of the land.

20. The result of the fast track trial was that Wirral Council has a possession order awarded in February 2014 which will come into effect in February 2015. Therefore this needs to be cleared up before then.

I’d be interested to hear other people’s opinion on this matter. Please point out if I’ve made some error or mistake. The above is just my opinion. As detailed here I did ask Surjit Tour to produce a report on this matter. His position is that when the eviction notice was served, Wirral Council weren’t opposed to granting the tenancy. However Wirral Council’s position later changed (before the date for ending the tenancy stated in the eviction notice). Therefore he views the eviction notice as lawfully ending the tenancy and valid. He therefore does not see this as a matter, that he as Monitoring Officer has a legal duty to write a report on for councillors.

Personally, I think it’s a matter that reasonable people can take a completely opposite viewpoint on. Sadly the wording, meaning and interpretation of the regulations of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 weren’t brought up (apart from the Judge asking Wirral Council to provide a copy of the prescribed form) during the fast track trial.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.

EXCLUSIVE: 1 letter, 4 emails and a note, Wirral Council’s incredible “behind the scenes” responses on Fernbank Farm

“If you make money your God, it will plague you like the devil.”

This is very long and detailed. Today may well be the last time I write about the ins and out of the Fernbank Farm saga (unless more documents surface or something dramatically changes), as I can’t see anything changing in the near future. I hope however that this gives an insight about what happened “behind the scenes” at Wirral Council, as if the tenants were kept in the dark by what seemed to them to be a conspiracy of silence, how can politicians hold officers to account on this topic without knowing the full details?

The first document I below is a letter dated 14th March 2014. The context to this letter is that after the fast track trial, the husband of one of the two defendants made a complaint to Wirral Council. This letter is the reply. I’ve not included the Wirral Council logo on the letter, Malcolm Flanagan’s signature or the www.wirral.gov.uk that appears at the foot of each page.

The letter refers to the letter sent in July 2012 to the tenants with the eviction notice (and which forms part of the eviction notice) as the “wrong letter”.

=======================================================================================================
(Wirral Council logo)

Transformation and Resources Department
Joe Blott,
Strategic Director

PO Box No 2,
Treasury Building
Cleveland Street
Birkenhead
Wirral
CH41 6BU

date 14 March 2014

to Mr M Woodley

your ref
my ref Farm3/MJF/DM
service Transformation and Resources – Business Processes
tel 0151 666 3260 Please ask for Malcolm Flanagan
email malcolmflanagan@wirral.gov.uk

Dear Mr Woodley,

Fernbank Farm complaint

I refer to your complaint of 18 February 2014, regarding the above matter as well as the pack of information including memory stick that you submitted to me on 24^th February.

I have been asked to review your complaint under the authority’s complaints process. I have looked at the matters you raise in how the authority acted in these proceedings. I have reviewed your comments as well as the information available to me and spoken to the officers concerned and set out below my views of the complaint.

As far back as 2000 the land in question had been allocated as a potential housing development site/primary residential as identified within the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. The restriction of developing such green field land which had been in place for some time was abolished nationally in May 2012. This then opened up the possibility of the property to development and realising a very significant capital receipt once it had been agreed by the authority. This national change was put before Cabinet on 27 September 2012 and the development restraint was effectively withdrawn on 15 October 2012 at Council.

The authority’s budget process identifying the stark financial position of the authority came to the fore in the September period under the direction of the Interim Director of Finance. It was at this point that wholesale reviews of authority expenditure, income and assets were undertaken. At the Council meeting in October this detailed the severe financial challenge the authority and that it must take drastic action to balance its budget.

It is then as the scale of the budget issue crystallised this property’s standing as a sizeable and realisable asset increased significantly in importance. It is my view that it was this budget process that changed the authority’s position on this property and it was not its original position.

I am satisfied that, despite what the later actions or inactions may make this look like, in May 2012 there was I believe an intention on the part of the authority to negotiate a new lease with the current tenants. I believe this is shown from the early contacts between the tenants and the authority.

I do not believe the authority intentionally used the wrong letter in July 2012. It is clear though that by some time no later than November 2012 the authority had chosen not to respond to enquiries in recognition of how the authority preferred to see the situation develop. I accept the tenants did write and phone but the authority did not respond and I do not think the authority denies this. At the hearing the authority’s officers said this is what they did and why they did it. The Judge at the hearing described this as “staying silent” and it is seemingly something a landlord can legally chose to do, as the tenant still has an available remedy to apply to the court to protect their own position.

I can though understand your concern on this stance and that the tenants were given no clear signal that this was the authority’s developing position. Again I appreciate your view on this non engagement and how you judge whether this is an appropriate way of transacting business as a public body.

In your complaint you asked who authorised the change in position in effect to “stay silent” and were they entitled to do that. My understanding is that officers in Asset Management have within their job description to act in a commercial manner and to effect the best position for the Council. In my interview with David Armstrong he made it clear that while the decision had predated him given the scale of the budget issue he could foresee no other alternative that he could have taken if it had been his service area at the time.

You have also commented that Mr Armstrong was unaware of the legal action. I have spoken with him and having looked at the timing of contacts no other action than the letter of August 13 was being referred to by you. He is clear that when speaking to you he thought from the information you gave that something else had been done without him being aware. This was not the case and it was the August 2013 being referred to.

Reviewing all these matter, I believe that it was a proper and legal position that the authority was entitled to take in recognition of its budget situation. In its formal role as Landlord, it acted within its rights, in a way to best manage its interest which was to re-acquire the property and realise the best possible receipt for use as capital in the future.

I fully realise you will view that differently. The stance taken by the authority was a formal and legal position but I realise how that translates in human terms on the impact it has on the longstanding tenants and the associations members.

Regrettably whilst appreciating your concerns on the authority’s manner of getting to the position it favoured, I cannot uphold your complaint that it was wrong of the authority to do this. I accept that the “non action” did not alert the tenants to the change in the Landlords intention as it was not something they anticipated from the authority.

Whilst I cannot uphold your complaint for the above reasons, I do appreciate the strength of feeling it has caused in so many people affected by this.

At the recent hearing the Judge gave the authority the right to take back the property I believe, in six months from the date of the decision. I am aware that Mr. Armstrong, Assistant Chief Executive, at the hearing indicated the offer of occupancy by the group for a longer period of 12 months. I believe this shows as the senior officer Mr Armstrong is keen to try to offer support for the club and not just act as quickly as the law allowed.

I have spoken to Mr. Armstrong and he is keen to mitigate the loss of the land to the group. He has also indicated to me his intention is to have the officer’s look at alternative sites for the group and to hopefully agree a suitable way forward over the next few weeks. I have had no reason to doubt the authority’s intention to support this process, while realising a very considerable asset, to help as much as reasonably possible those affected by its decision.

I do realise you will be disappointed by the outcome of my review in not supporting your complaint. However I remain clear that whilst all was done by the authority in a legal manner I appreciate how the change to a more commercial operation in handling this situation has been seen by those affected.

I have to advise you that my review is undertaken at Stage 1 of the authority’s complaints process. If you are dissatisfied with my review you do have the right to request a further review, which can be requested by writing back to me and it would be reviewed by another officer.

Yours sincerely,

(Malcolm Flanagan’s signature)
Malcolm Flanagan
Head of Business Processes

=======================================================================================================
Below are some emails and a note that show what was happening “behind the scenes” at Wirral Council.
=======================================================================================================
From: Dickenson, David
Sent: 23 January 2013 10:54
To: Voas, Sandy
Subject: Upton Pony Owners Lease, Sandbrook Lane, Moreton

Hi Sandy

As discussed Upton Pony Owners lease land at Sandbrook Lane Moreton and the section 25 notice has been served to terminate the lease on 31^st May 2013. The trustees are Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley. Please can no further invoices be raised or any rent accepted after 31^st May 2013. The tenants are not aware yet but the Council may be looking at the future of this land.

Thanks

David

David Dickenson MRICS
Asset Management Surveyor
Asset Management Section
Wirral Council
Cheshire Lines Building
Canning Street
Birkenhead
Wirral
=======================================================================================================
From: Coathup, Cheryl
Sent: 20 May 2013 12:07
To: Dickenson, David
Subject: Telephone Message – Mrs Kane
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red

Can you please phone Mrs Kane – 678 XXXX, she is awaiting a response from a letter she sent in 3 weeks ago.

Cheryl Coathup

(Technical Assistant)
Department of Law, HR and Asset Management
Asset Management Section
Tel: 0151 666 3878
Fax: 0151 606 2090
email: cherylcoathup@wirral.gov.uk

=======================================================================================================
From: Jones, Debbie A.
Sent: 20 May 2013 15:48
To: Dickenson, David
Cc: Voas, Sandy
Subject: RE: Upton Pony Owners Lease, Sandbrook Lane, Moreton

Hi Dave

Sorry we don’t have the facility to stop payments coming in at all. All we can do is refund straight away if we receive a payment in.
——————————————————————————————————-
From: Dickenson, David
Sent: 20 May 2013 15:38
To: Jones, Debbie A.
Cc: Voas, Sandy
Subject: FW: Upton Pony Owners Lease, Sandbrook Lane, Moreton

Hi Debbie

After 31^st May although no new invoices will be sent out, can the account be changed so no rent can be paid onto old invoices as this would also be classed as them paying the rent by a court.

Thanks

David

=======================================================================================================
From: Jones, Debbie A.
Sent: 13 August 2013 14:23
To: Dickenson, David; Simpson, Tony
Cc: Voas, Sandy; Chan, Kit C.; Bayatti, Ali N.
Subject: Upton Pony Owners Association

Hi Dave

I refer to another £350.00 standing order payment received against the above mentioned customer 4206583 dated 1^st August 2013. Even after the customer number had been made inactive on the AR system, it appears any money being received quoting a valid customer will still appear on their account.

I have again refunded the money back to the Associations bank account but this time have asked for another customer number to be set up with the clients address details and merged the old customer number 4206583 with the new one, therefore making 4206583 invalid so hopefully as the Association quote their customer number when paying by BACS/Standing Order the AR system will now not recognise it as a valid number and place it in our unidentified payments were we will be able to refund straight away without the money hitting their account.

Can you please confirm and send me a copy of the letter that you have sent to the above requesting that they now cancel the standing order payment.

Thanks

(Debbie Jones signature)
(Wirral Council logo) WIRRAL BOROUGH COUNCIL
Accounts Receivables
Debbie Jones
Accounts Receivable Income Officer
Revenues Services/ Business Processes

=======================================================================================================
20^th May 2013

After 31^st May 2013 Pony owners will have lost the right to renew if they do not apply to court but Sundry debtors must not charge or accept any rent.
Spoke to Tony after getting first message and again, ignore phone call as any commercial firm would do.

Tony has spoken to David Armstrong about situation.

Spoke to Peter Rowlands after 31^st May need to apply to court to get them off, after 6 months get protection again. Peter will need to check with Anne Quirk. V important that Council accepts no rent.

Emailed and spoke to Debbie Finance cannot stop any rent payments being received either by tenant using customer number old invoice number of name. Debbie checked with IT.
=======================================================================================================
* Peter Rowlands is Wirral Council’s officer contact for property that they are auctioning off through Pugh Auctions. Therefore it is clear that Wirral Council’s intention was to get a possession order for Fernbank Farm, evict the tenants and sell the property off to the highest bidder. Obviously before then a Cabinet Member would have to decide to declare it “surplus to requirements” which is something that can’t be decided while the tenants are still there.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.

1 invoice and 1 letter about the secret Court application I’m not allowed to write about that cost Wirral Council £535.20

Share this:

Expense claim forms for Councillor Brian Kenny (Wirral Council) 2013 to 2014

Share this:

Horses or 100 houses at Fernbank Farm? Liverpool City Region Combined Authority agrees to list it for housing

Possession Order (February 2014)

Share this:

2 different opinions on what regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 means

Share this:

EXCLUSIVE: 1 letter, 4 emails and a note, Wirral Council’s incredible “behind the scenes” responses on Fernbank Farm

Share this: