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

Wirral Council: It’s time for some answers over Fernbank Farm and filming!

Particulars of Claim Wirral Council v Kane & Woodley Page 1 of 3

Particulars of Claim Wirral Council v Kane & Woodley Page 2 of 3

Particulars of Claim Wirral Council v Kane & Woodley Page 3 of 3

Jenmaleo
134 Boundary Road
Bidston
Wirral
CH43 7PH
9th June 2014

Surjit Tour
Monitoring Officer
Wallasey Town Hall
Brighton Street
Wallasey
Wirral
CH44 8ED

Dear Mr. Surjit Tour,

You are designated as the Monitoring Officer for Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. Section 5(2)(a) and 5(2B) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 state the following about a legal duty of the Monitoring Officer:

Subject to subsection (2B), it shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission by the authority, by any committee, or sub-committee of the authority, by any person holding any office or employment under the authority or by any joint committee on which the authority are represented constitutes, has given rise to or is likely to or would give rise to—

(a) a contravention by the authority, by any committee, or sub-committee of the authority, by any person holding any office or employment under the authority or by any such joint committee of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment; or

(b) any such maladministration or injustice as is mentioned in Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 (Local Commissioners) or Part II of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (which makes corresponding provision for Scotland),to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.

to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.

(2B) Where a relevant authority are operating executive arrangements, the monitoring officer of the relevant authority shall not make a report under subsection (2) in respect of any proposal, decision or omission unless it is a proposal, decision or omission made otherwise than by or on behalf of the relevant authority’s executive.

On Friday 6th June the Chair of the Licensing Act 2003 subcommitee Councillor Steve Niblock insisted that I stop filming a public meeting of the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee. The legal adviser to that committee insisted that he was entitled to take this action because of Regulation 25 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005. This regulation is below:

“Procedure at hearing

25. The authority may require any person attending the hearing who in their opinion is behaving in a disruptive manner to leave the hearing and may—

(a) refuse to permit that person to return, or

(b) permit him to return only on such conditions as the authority may specify,

but such a person may, before the end of the hearing, submit to the authority in writing any information which they would have been entitled to give orally had they not been required to leave.”

“authority” in this context is defined in Regulation 2 as “in relation to a hearing, the relevant licensing authority which has the duty under the Act to hold the hearing which expression includes the licensing committee or licensing sub-committee discharging the function of holding the hearing;”

At no point during the meeting was I asked to leave the room by the Chair or the subcommittee as a whole. Regulation 2 which defines authority makes is clear that persons can only be required to leave if it is the opinion of the whole subcommittee that the person/s are behaving in a disruptive manner. There were two members of the subcommittee Councillor Harry Smith and Councillor John Salter who did not express a view, therefore Regulation 25 was not engaged.

The legal adviser to that committee, Ken Abraham said, “We have rights under the regulations too, which empower them to stop a hearing proceeding if there is an issue about disrupting the meeting and the Chair took the view at that time that because it was clearly indicated that he didn’t want filming that he could have asked you to leave the room but he didn’t.” As you can see from this quote, he refers to the Chair (Councillor Steve Niblock)’s view, not the view of the whole subcommittee. It is unknown whether the other two members of the subcommittee agreed with this view or held a contrary view as they did not state their view during the meeting on this matter.

S. 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 states “It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.” and s.3(1) states “So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.”

The Convention Right in question is article 10 which is below:

“

ARTICLE 10

Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Bearing the above in mind and your previous email of the 2nd April 2013 in which you stated “Furthermore, there no ban on filming” I would ask you to exercise your duty as Monitoring Officer to prepare a report about the above matter.

There is also another matter which I wish to draw to your attention, which may place a duty on you to write a further report about a different matter. I am sure you are aware of Wirral Council’s successful attempt to gain a possession order for the land known as Fernbank Farm in Moreton.

Section 3 of Wirral Council’s Particulars of Claim stated “On 13th July 2012 the First and Second Defendants were served with a notice in the prescribed form persuant to section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act the effect of which notifies them as Tenants of the intention to bring the tenancy to an end on 31st May 2013 but that the Council had no objection in the meantime to creating a new lease on certain terms.” and Section 8 of the Particulars of Claim stated “As a result the tenancy has been terminated in accordance with the law and the Claimant is therefore entitled to possession.”

At the fast track trial on 13th February 2014, Wirral Council’s expert witness David Dickinson stated (under oath) that he had been instructed by a manager not to renew the lease. In answer to District Judge Woodburn’s question to David Dickinson that his instructions were contrary to the terms of the notice, Mr Dickinson answered that his instructions were contrary to the notice. In answer to another question Mr Dickinson answered that he had been told not to engage in discussions with the tenants between November 2012 and May 2013.

Regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 prescribe which type of form should be used. Wirral Council used form 1 and the prescribed purpose for form 1 is defined in Schedule 1 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).”

Based on David Dickinson’s testimony under oath, Wirral Council had decided not to renew the tenancy therefore form 2 should have been used, the prescribed purpose for form 2 is defined in Schedule 1 as “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where—

(a)the landlord is opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act); and
(b)the tenant is not entitled under the 1967 Act to buy the freehold or an extended lease..”

Clearly either a number of assertions (as outlined above) made in the particulars of claim are incorrect and Mr. Dickinson was telling the truth about Wirral Council’s decision not to renew the lease or alternatively what was outlined in the particulars of claim was correct and Mr. Dickinson was not telling the truth under oath. I am sure you will understand that the possibility of either scenario is concerning.

Therefore bearing in mind the above I would request that you write a further report on this matter which is your legal duty as Monitoring Officer. In order to aid you in this, I do know that following a complaint made by one of the tenant’s spouses that a long multi-page letter was sent to him about this and other related matters.

If a report (or reports) have already been written by yourself (or others on your behalf) I would appreciate being sent a copy. If a report (or reports) on these matters are in the process of being written by someone either at Wirral Council or an external third party I would appreciate being told who they are and by what date their report is expected to be completed.

If you feel a report (or reports) on the above matters are not necessary, I would appreciate hearing from you your reasons as to why. I intend to publish any such reply I receive either from yourself (or others on your behalf) as I feel that both these matters are of concern to large numbers of citizens on the Wirral and need to be resolved.

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

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

Public meetings for Wirral Council, Merseytravel and a HoC select committee on how much Chief Officers are paid

Below is a list of upcoming public meetings & other matters involving local government happening this week. Most are local, but the House of Common’s Communities and Local Government Select Committee on Chief Officer’s pay in local government should be available to watch live on Parliament’s website.
=======================================================================================================
Date:Monday 2nd June 2014
Time: 7.00pm
Public Body/Committee: Wirral Council
Venue: Floral Pavilion, Marine Promenade, New Brighton, Wirral, Merseyside, CH45 2JS

Type of meeting (Annual Meeting of the Council Part 1)
Agenda
1. Declarations of Interest
2. Civic Mayor’s Announcements
3. Election of Civic Mayor 2014/15 (the Cabinet’s recommendation is Cllr Steve Foulkes)
4. Appoint a Deputy Civic Mayor 2014/15 (the Cabinet’s recommendation is Cllr Les Rowlands)
5. Adjournment to 6.15pm on Monday 9th June 2014

=======================================================================================================

Date: Wednesday 4th June 2014
Time: 2.00pm
Public Body/Committee: Merseytravel Committee of Liverpool City Region Combined Authority
Venue: Authority Chamber, Merseytravel Offices, No 1. Mann Island, Liverpool, L3 1BP
Agenda & reports
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Minutes of the last meeting
4. High Speed 2 Action Plan June 2014 Update
5. Rail Devolution Update
6. Liverpool City Region: Long Term Rail Strategy

=======================================================================================================

Date: Wednesday 4th June 2014
Time: 4:15pm
Public Body/Committee: Communities and Local Government Select Committee/House of Commons
Venue: The Thatcher Room, Portcullis House
Subject: Local Government Chief Officers’ remuneration
Witnesses: Graham Farrant, Chief Executive of Thurrock Council and London Borough of Barking & Dagenham and Maggie Rae, Corporate Director, Wiltshire Council; Mike Cooke, Chief Executive, London Borough of Camden, Councillor Sarah Hayward, Leader, London Borough of Camden, Paul Martin, Chief Executive, London Borough of Wandsworth and Councillor Ravi Govindia, Leader, London Borough of Wandsworth; Martin Tucker, Joint Managing Partner, Gatenby Sanderson and Peter Smith, Director, Hay Group

=======================================================================================================

Date: Thursday 5th June 2014
Time: 10am
Venue: Birkenhead County Court, 76 Hamilton St, Birkenhead CH41 5EN
Irving -v- Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (Fast Track Trial)
Case number: 3YQ53624
*Note sometimes parties reach an out of court settlement before a trial in which case the trial doesn’t go ahead.

=======================================================================================================

Date: Friday 6th June 2014
Time: 10.00am
Public Body/Committee: Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee of Wirral Council
Agenda and reports
1. Appointment of Chair
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Application for a Premises Licence – Michaels of Moreton
4. Any other business

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

EXCLUSIVE: What was the defence used in Wirral Council’s court case to evict the Fernbank Farm tenants?

This continues from yesterday’s blog post EXCLUSIVE: How Wirral Council’s court case to evict the Fernbank Farm tenants began on the 8th August 2013. As with the documents published yesterday, the thumbnails should link to higher resolution versions of each image. The text in each document is copied below each thumbnail.

Part 1 – The Acknowledgement of Service Form (Part 8 Claim)
Part 2 – Defence Form
Part 3 – Amended Defence
Part 4 – Court Order (29th November 2013)
Part 5 – Possession Order (February 2014)

The Acknowledgement of Service Form (Part 8 Claim)

The only boxes filled out on page 1 are “In the BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT” and “Claim No 3BI05210”.

Claim No 3BI05210

A box is ticked in Section D “I object to the Claimant issuing under this procedure”. Under “My reasons for objecting are” the following is handwritten “WE HAVE NEVER GAVE UP OR SAID WE WOULDN’T RENEW OUR LEASE. WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR MR DICKINSON, TO GET BACK TO US. AS FAR AS WE ARE AWARE WE WERE WAITING FOR HIS REPLYS INVOLVING OUR LEASE AND TO THIS DAY HAVE STILL HAD NO REPLY FROM MR DICKINSON, AND WE ARE COMPLETELY SHOCKED BY THESE LETTERS.”

In Section F “Full name of the defendant filing this acknowledgement” is handwritten “VALERIE PATRICIA WOODLEY”.

In Section G “I am duly authorised by the defendant to sign this statement” is crossed out and underneath “*(I believe)(The defendant believes) that the facts stated on this form are true.” is the signature of Valerie P Woodley.

In a box for the date 17th August 2013 is entered.

The home address, postcode and phone number of the defendant are redacted before being published.

Defence Form

Claim No 3BI05210

In the box “I dispute the the claimant’s claim because:-” is written “As we are aware we are still waiting for Mr Dickinson to reply so we could, renew our lease.”

In the Statement of Truth “The defendant(s) believe(s))” is crossed out but it is unsigned. The defendant’s date of birth is redacted. The defendant’s full name is given as “VALERIE PATRICIA WOODLEY”. The defendant’s home address, postcode and telephone number are redacted.

Amended Defence

The Court Manager
Birkenhead County Court
76 Hamilton Street
Birkenhead
Merseyside
CH41 5EN

Dear Sirs

RE: Claim Number 3BI05210, WBC v Carol Eileen Kane

Please find enclosed the Defendant’s Amended Defence in triplicate.

We can confirm that we have served the Claimant with a copy of the same.

Yours faithfully,

(signature of Valerie Woodley and Carol E Kane)

Carol Eileen Kane

There is a stamp of “BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT COUNTER 04 DEC 2013 A/C 21283 £ _____ Section ______”

IN THE BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT

Claim No: 3BI05210
BETWEEN:
Wirral Borough Council
Claimant
-v-
Carol Eileen Kane
Defendant
____________________
AMENDED DEFENCE
____________________

Document is stamped BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT COUNTER 04 DEC 2013 A/C 21283 £ ______ Section _______ .

IN THE BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT

Claim no. 3BI05210

BETWEEN:

Wirral Borough Council

Claimant

-v-

Carol Eileen Kane

Defendant

__________________________

AMENDED DEFENCE

__________________________

1. The contents of the Particular of Claim is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof in regards to the statements contained therein

2. The Claimant did make known to the Defendant that discussions were on going in relation to renewal of her lease, both explicitly and implicitly, insofar as an employee, servant or agent of the Claimant, told the Defendant ‘not to worry’ and thereafter failed to communicate intention of possession.

3. The Defendant relied upon the representations of the Claimant ‘not to worry,’ insofar as the Defendant continued peaceable enjoyment of the land which was invested in utilising the Defendant’s financial resources..

4. The Claimant has reneged on previous representations and failed to communicate its instructions to the Defendant adequately if at all.

DATED this the 03^rd day of December 2013.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe/ that the facts contained within the Amended Defence are true.

(Signed) (signature of Valerie Woodley) (signature of Carol E Kane)

(Dated) 4th December 2013

Claimant

To: the District Judge

And To: the Defendant

Court Order (29th November 2013)

General Form of Judgement or Order

In the BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT
Claim Number	3BI05210
Date	29 November 2013

WIRRAL BOROUGH COUNCIL	1^st Claimant Ref
CAROL EILEEN KANE	1^st Defendant Ref
VALERIE PATRICIA WOODLEY	2^nd Defendant Ref

Before Deputy District Judge Grosscurth sitting at Birkenhead County Court, 76 Hamilton Street, Birkenhead, Merseyside, CH41 5EN.

Upon the Court’s own motion

IT IS ORDERED THAT:-

1. The Claimant shall include in the indexed bundle pursuant to paragraph 4 of the order of 21st November 2013 a chronology setting out all relevant dates relating to the granting of the lease, notices given and dates by when action persuant thereto should have occurred.

This order has been made by the court of its own initiative under CPR 3.3. Any party affected by this order may apply to have it set aside, varied, or stayed within 7 days of the date on which the order is served on that party.

Dated 28 November 2013

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The court office at Birkenhead County Court, 76 Hamilton Street, Birkenhead, Merseyside, CH41 5EN is open between 10:00 am and 2:00 pm Monday to Friday. When corresponding with the court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim number. Tel: 0151 666 5800. Fax: 0151 666 5873

N24 General Form of Judgement or Order

Produced by: N Swann

CJR065

Possession Order (February 2014)

General Form of Judgement or Order>

In the BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT
Claim Number	3BI05210
Date	17 February 2014

WIRRAL BOROUGH COUNCIL	1^st Claimant Ref
CAROL EILEEN KANE	1^st Defendant Ref
VALERIE PATRICIA WOODLEY	2^nd Defendant Ref

Before District Judge Woodburn sitting at Birkenhead County Court, 76 Hamilton Street, Birkenhead, Merseyside, CH41 5EN.

Upon hearing Counsel for the Claimant

IT IS ORDERED THAT:-

1) The Defendant’s shall by 4.00pm on the 13th February 2015 deiliver up possession of land situate at Sandbrook Lane, Moreton, Wirral.

2) No order as to costs

Dated 13 February 2014

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

N24 General Form of Judgement or Order

Produced by: N Swann

CJR065

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

EXCLUSIVE: How Wirral Council’s court case to evict the Fernbank Farm tenants began on the 8th August 2013

Part 1 Why am I redacting parts of court documents before publishing them?
Part 2 N5 Claim Form for possession of property – How Wirral Council started its claim for a possession order for Fernbank Farm
Part 3 Particulars of Claim
Part 4 The map attached to the Particulars of Claim

Why am I redacting parts of court documents before publishing them?

Before I start with a blog post about how Wirral Council’s claim for a possession order for the land known as Fernbank Farm in Sandbrook Lane I am going to explain why I have redacted certain details from these documents before publishing them as well as the arguments for and against disclosing them without redactions. The general principles behind this I wrote about yesterday in Getting information about Fernbank Farm is made unusually difficult; what are they trying to hide?.

Attached to the particulars of claim is a map showing the land this case is about edged in red (although on the black and white photocopy I have it’s edged in black). Unfortunately the map is crown copyright and although Wirral Council have a licence to publish it I don’t, therefore the map and compass are blacked out from that document. I will however provide a description of where the land is and a link to a map. The title on the map lists it as being at Sandbrook Lane, Upton. Most people would regard it as being in Moreton, not Upton as it’s North of the M53 Junction 2 spur and the particulars of claim refer to it as being in Moreton.

To the documents that started the claim (the N5 form, particulars of claim and map) I have made two other redactions. The claim form itself has the home addresses of both defendants. However the request for a possession order does not relate to either of their home addresses, but to Fernbank Farm in Sandbrook Lane. During the fast track trial in February 2014 both defendants gave evidence from the witness stand and stated their home address in open court (at a public hearing) in front of about fifty people.

Personally I have no problem with my home address being in the public domain, as when you stand in an election it becomes public knowledge. My attitudes on privacy are therefore probably different to most of the population! Neither of the defendants are “public figures” and in my view therefore are entitled to a certain degree of privacy with such information. The case has nothing to do with their home addresses as it is to do purely with them being signatories to a lease with Wirral Council for Fernbank Farm.

Arguments in favour of disclosure of the defendant’s home addresses would be that these details have been given in open court and it would allow those reading this to contact them directly. However both have Facebook profiles, which can be used if people wish to contact them directly. If either Mrs Kane or Mrs Woodley are reading this and are happy with their home address/es being published my contact details are here.

Search engines cannot properly index or read scanned images, therefore the text of what is in these documents is included below it. As usual with images I post on this blog, a thumbnail is used and you can click on the thumbnail for a higher resolution image.

Return to Contents

N5 Claim Form for possession of property – How Wirral Council started its claim for a possession order for Fernbank Farm

This is a link to the current (2014) blank version of the N5 claim form (for possession of property) which has minor changes to the 2013 version used by Wirral Council in their claim.

Claim Form for possession of property

In the BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT
Claim No.	3BI05210

Claimant
(name(s) and address(es))
WIRRAL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
TOWN HALL
BRIGHTON STREET
WALLASEY
WIRRAL
CH44 8ED

Defendant(s)
(name(s) and address(es))
1) CAROL EILEEN KANE 2) VALERIE PATRICIA WOODLEY
(address redacted) (address redacted)
The claimant is claiming possession of:

land at Sandbrook Lane, Moreton, Wirral shown as the land edged in red on the attached plan.

which (~~includes~~) (does not include) residential property. Full particulars of the claim are attached.
(~~The Claimant is also making a claim for money~~).

This claim will be heard on: 20 at am/pm at

At the hearing

The Court will consider whether or not you must leave the property and, if so, when.
It will take into account information the Claimant provides and any you provide.

What you should do

Get help and advice immediately from a solicitor or an advice agency.
Help yourself and the court by filling in the defence form and coming to the hearing to make sure the court knows all the facts.
Defendant’s name and address for service
CAROL EILEEN KANE
(address redacted)

Court fee £175.00

Solicitor’s costs £

Total amount £

Issue date 08 AUG 2013

N5 Claim form for possession of property (08.05) HCMS
Document has the Birkenhead County Court seal and is also stamped Date of Service 12 AUG 2013 Solicitors to Serve

Claim No.

Grounds for possession
The claim for possession is made on the following ground (s):

rent arrears
other breach of tenancy
forfeiture of the lease
mortgage arrears
other breach of the mortgage
tresspass
(tick) other (please specify) expiry of tenancy

Anti-social behaviour

The claimant is alleging
actual or threatened anti-social behaviour
actual or threatened use of the property for unlawful purposes

Is the claimant claiming demotion of tenancy? Yes (tick next to No) No
Is the claimant claiming an order suspending the right to buy? Yes (tick next to No) No
See full details in the attached particulars of claim.
Does, or will, the claim raise any issues under the Human Rights Act 1998? Yes (tick next to No) No

Statement of Truth
*(~~I believe~~)(The Claimant believes) that the facts stated in this claim form are true.
* I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement.

signed (Surjit Tour’s signature) date 5th August 2013
*(Claimant)(~~Litigation friend (where the claimant is a child or a patient)(Claimant’s solicitor)~~
*delete as appropriate
Full name SURJIT TOUR
Name of claimant’s solicitor’s firm WIRRAL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
position or office held Head of Legal & Democratic Services
                         (if signing on behalf of firm or company)

Claimant’s or claimant’s solicitor’s address to which documents or payments should be sent if different from overleaf. Postcode

if applicable

Ref no. AB/26560

fax no. 01942 691 8482

DX no. DX 708630 Seacombe

e-mail alibayatti@wirral.gov.uk

Tel. no. 0151 691 8137

Return to Contents

Particulars of Claim

IN THE BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT         Claim No.
BETWEEN:-

WIRRAL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

Claimant

-and-

CAROL EILEEN KANE (1)

First Defendant

-and-

VALERIE PATRICIA WOODLEY (2)

Second Defendant

=======================================================================================================

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

=======================================================================================================

1. The Claimant is the owner of approximately 10.12 acres of land situated at and described as land at Sandbroook Lane, Moreton, Wirral, Merseyside and shown edged in red on the plan attached.

2. On 29 July 2008 the Claimant entered into a lease of the land with the First and Second Defendants who are trustees of the Upton Park Pony Owner’s Association. Upon expiry of the fixed term the lease converted into a monthly periodic tenancy in July 2011. The expressed rent payable for the lease was £4200 per year payable in equal monthly instalments.

3. On 13^th July 2012 the First and Second Defendants were served with a notice in the prescribed form persuant to section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act

1954 the effect of which notifies them as Tenants of the intention to bring the tenancy to an end on 31^st May 2013 but that the Council had no objection in the meantime to creating a new lease on certain terms.

4. The terms specified within the notice indicated that a new lease could be agreed if the rent was increased to £4500 per year and a payment of £500 for legal fees.

5. The First Defendant acknowledged receipt of the notice on 17^th July 2012. She sent a letter to the Council in April 2013 to explain that the Association had been enduring a difficult period with increased costs due to, amongst other things, flooding and repairs/maintenance. She also rang the Council in and around April 2013 on three or four occasions expressing the same. She requested that the rent remain at £4200 per year and that the legal fee be waved on the basis that the lease would be in terms similar to the then existing lease.

6. The notice gave the tenants an opportunity to agree a new lease on the proposed terms. In the event that the parties were unable to agree the terms of a new lease the notice specified that the tenants could either make an application to Court by 31^st May 2013 or do so after that date only where there is agreement in writing from the Claimant to extend the deadline.

7. No application has been made by either party nor has there been an agreement in writing or at all by the Claimant to extend the deadline for an agreement to be reached or an application to be made.

8. There is a warning on the face of the notice saying that tenants will lose their right to apply to the Court if an application is not made on or before the 31st May 2013. As a result the tenancy has been terminated in accordance with the law and the Claimant is therefore entitled to possession.

Return to Contents

The map attached to the Particulars of Claim

title
Land at
Sandbrook Lane
Upton

scale 1:2500
date 8/7/2013
map ref. 39SE

© Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. Published 2010. Licence number 100019803.
Tel: 0151 666 3884 Fax: 0151 606 2090
Asset Management Section, Universal and Infrastructure Services, Cheshire Lines Building, Canning Street, Birkenhead, CH41 1ND

The map is Crown Copyright but if you follow this link the land in question is the land North of Fernbank Lane (which is found next to the M53 Junction 2 spur), West of Manor Drive, South of the houses on Croft Drive and East of the houses in Ravenstone Close and The Park House.

Return to Contents

Continues at EXCLUSIVE: What was the defence used in Wirral Council’s court case to evict the Fernbank Farm tenants?.

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

Getting information about Fernbank Farm is made unusually difficult; what are they trying to hide?

I went to Birkenhead County Court today to get copies of documents to do with Wirral Council’s request for a possession order in the Fernbank Farm case. What I had requested was a copy of the two judgements (the first one arising from the application hearing on the 21st November 2013 and the second one from the fast track trial from February this year). I also had requested the “statement of case” and was told by letter that copies of these documents would come to £10.

When I paid the £10 I was given a copy of court orders dated 17th February 2014 (the possession order) and a court order I wasn’t aware of (that had been made without a hearing) on the 29th November 2013. I queried whether this was the one I’d asked for as the date was incorrect, but the member of staff insisted it was the right one (even though it wasn’t). I was also given a copy of the original particulars of claim (which had been attached to the claim form). This came to six pages in total.

I queried with the member of staff at the counter as to why the original claim form hadn’t been included, as the letter I had got in reply from the Court stated that a District Judge had agreed that I was entitled to a copy of the court orders and the statement of case (which I am entitled to under Civil Procedure Rule 5.4C). She insisted that the “statement of case” was just the particulars of claim and that I wasn’t entitled to any more documents beyond that which I had already received. I asked her to check the definition in the Civil Procedure Rules but she refused to do so.

I was going to the University of Liverpool library anyway, so while I was there I looked up what “statement of case” actually means. It’s defined in Part 2.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules as
“statement of case –

(a) means a claim form, particulars of claim where these are not included in a claim form, defence, Part 20 claim, or reply to defence; and

(b) includes any further information given in relation to them voluntarily or by court order under rule 18.1;”

So I printed off a copy of this and returned to the Birkenhead County Court querying why statement of case had been interpreted as meaning just the particulars of claim (especially as the statement of truth for the particulars of claim was on the claim form). I also pointed out that the court order of the 29th November 2013 requested the Claimant (Wirral Council) to “include a chronology setting out all relevant dates relating to the granting of the lease, notices given and dates by when action pursuant thereto should have occurred”. I asked why a blank defence form had been included in the earlier six pages, but not the defence, reply to the defence or the information supplied in response to this court order?

The member of staff said that they [the staff] disagreed with my interpretation of “statement of case” and that they would have to ask a District Judge which was impossible to do at that time as the Judge or Judges were on a lunch break. We waited for about an hour until she went to find a Judge (who unsurprisingly agreed with what the previous Judge had told the person who wrote the letter) and when she came back she had to provide me with the documents that she had earlier that day insisted I wasn’t entitled to which were the original claim form, the defendant’s amended defence (submitted in triplicate so she charged me for three copies), an acknowledgement of service form, blank defence form and another copy of the same particulars of claim (but this time including a map).

As this now came to twenty-five pages (instead of the original six), she insisted on charging an extra £7.50. This was despite the fact that she had given me a copy (again) of the particulars of claim (a further three pages). She insisted the second copy was an amended particulars of claim (it wasn’t, it was identical), the only difference being that she had now included a page of a map of Fernbank Farm. She also provided the amended defence in triplicate (which was three pages so therefore giving me it in triplicate meant an extra six pages). I quibbled over being charged extra for pages I had already been supplied with, but in the end I just paid the £7.50 as I can claim this back from the Birkenhead County Court in the next 6 months (as well as the original £10) using an EX160 form.

What was most telling was that I was told by the member of staff who reluctantly gave me what I paid for that I wasn’t to publish these documents on my blog! This was from the member of staff who didn’t know what “statement of case” meant!

Contempt of Court does apply to civil proceedings, however as detailed in s.2(3) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, this only applies when proceedings are “active”. Schedule 1 details that for civil cases (see sections 12-13), proceedings are “active when arrangements for the hearing are made until the proceedings are disposed of, discontinued or withdrawn”. Arrangements of the hearing of the proceedings is defined as “in the case of any proceedings, when a date for a trial or hearing is fixed”. The trial in this case was held on the 13th February 2014. The possession order given on the 17th February 2014 in Wirral Council’s favour disposed of the matter, therefore at that point proceedings were no longer active.

Even if proceedings were active (as they were prior to the 17th February 2014), there is a caveat in s.5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 when it comes to “discussion of public affairs”. Section 5 states “A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.”

There are no reporting restrictions in effect with regards to these proceedings and I am not subject to a court order preventing publication of these documents from the Birkenhead County Court. I therefore think that once again this member of staff has “got it wrong”. The Birkenhead County Court is subject to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it is “unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right”. This includes article 10 which states:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Therefore for the reasons above (that proceedings aren’t active and even if they were that what I’m going to publish falls under discussion of public affairs) and National Union of Journalist’s Code of Conduct rule 1 which states “At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed” I will ~~be writing tomorrow~~ have written at EXCLUSIVE: How Wirral Council’s court case to evict the Fernbank Farm tenants began on the 8th August 2013 about information I have found out from reading these documents.

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

if applicable
Ref no.	AB/26560
fax no.	01942 691 8482
DX no.	DX 708630 Seacombe
e-mail	alibayatti@wirral.gov.uk
Tel. no.	0151 691 8137

Court fee	£175.00
Solicitor’s costs	£
Total amount	£

Wirral Council: It’s time for some answers over Fernbank Farm and filming!

Share this:

Public meetings for Wirral Council, Merseytravel and a HoC select committee on how much Chief Officers are paid

Share this:

EXCLUSIVE: What was the defence used in Wirral Council’s court case to evict the Fernbank Farm tenants?

Contents

The Acknowledgement of Service Form (Part 8 Claim)

Defence Form

Amended Defence

Court Order (29th November 2013)

Possession Order (February 2014)

Share this:

EXCLUSIVE: How Wirral Council’s court case to evict the Fernbank Farm tenants began on the 8th August 2013

Contents

Why am I redacting parts of court documents before publishing them?

N5 Claim Form for possession of property – How Wirral Council started its claim for a possession order for Fernbank Farm

Particulars of Claim

The map attached to the Particulars of Claim

Share this:

Getting information about Fernbank Farm is made unusually difficult; what are they trying to hide?

Share this: