Tag: David Dickenson

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

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

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

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

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 24th 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 31st May 2013. The trustees are Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley. Please can no further invoices be raised or any rent accepted after 31st 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 31st 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 1st 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

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

After 31st 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 31st 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.

Cross-examination of Kane & Woodley, parties summarise their case in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Cross-examination of Kane & Woodley, parties summarise their case in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Cross-examination of Kane & Woodley, parties summarise their case in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

                    

Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (case 3BI05210)
Birkenhead County Court
13th February 2014
Court Room 1

Continues from Mrs Kane faces questions from Sarah O’Brien (barrister) and District Judge Woodburn in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm).

Mrs Kane is questioned by District Judge Woodburn
Mrs Kane asked why they would pay for a further twelve months of public liability insurance if the lease hadn’t been renewed? District Judge Woodburn said something brief to which Mrs Kane said that Wirral Council had been “ignoring us”. She said that Wirral Council could only get out of renewing a protected lease if they had broken the terms of the lease and referred to a letter from 2012. District Judge Woodburn referred to an agreement. Mrs Kane said yes, that they thought that Wirral Council agreed to renewal.

District Judge Woodburn asked Mrs Kane why she had not done as suggested in paragraph five (which refers to applying to the Court)? Mrs Kane said she had spoken with David Dickenson in April or May and as far as she knew the lease was going through. The first thing she knew it hadn’t was in August when she received an invoice for £700. She rang the number and was told it was for rent because they’d given up the land which was the first thing she knew. Two days after she received details about Wirral Council’s request for a possession order. District Judge Woodburn said that Mrs Kane could return to her seat and swap with Mrs Woodley.

Mrs Woodley takes the witness stand
Mrs Woodley said, “I swear by Almighty God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. District Judge Woodburn asked her name to which she replied “Valerie Patricia Woodley”. He asked her to have a seat and pointed out that she had not made a witness statement. District Judge Woodburn referred Mrs Woodley to a document at page fifteen and asked if it was her handwriting? She answered, “Yeah”. District Judge Woodburn asked her to go over the page to page seventeen and eighteen and asked if that was her handwriting? Mrs Woodley gave the same answer.

District Judge Woodburn asked if it was a statement made in support of the defence? She answered, “Yeah”. He asked her a further question, she answered then he said if she wished to she could have a seat.

Mrs Woodley is cross-examined by Sarah O’Brien
Sarah O’Brien, barrister for Wirral Council asked her to confirm the document was true, which referred to an alleged conversation between David Dickenson and Carol Kane. She said “yes”. Sarah O’Brien said that Mrs Woodley had no knowledge of the conversation as she had not taken part in it. Mrs Woodley explained that she had put that in because her mother was ill. Sarah O’Brien asked another brief question to which Mrs Woodley answered “no”.

Miss O’Brien asked Mrs Woodley if she accepted that she’d received a copy of the eviction notice which intended to end the business tenancy? Mrs Woodley answered “yes”. District Judge Woodburn referred to when she received the notice at page twenty-two in the bundle that it looked like that. He asked her to have a quick read of paragraph five. He referred to having to apply to the court to grant a new tenancy by the date in paragraph two (31st May) and whether she knew this? Mrs Woodley said that when her mum (Mrs Kane) was speaking she’d told her that they didn’t need to because they were in negotiations. District Judge Woodburn asked her if she had anything to add, she replied “no”. He asked her if she agreed with Mrs Kane to which she replied “yes” and if there was anything else she wished to add to which she replied “no”. District Judge Woodburn asked her to watch her step as she left the witness stand and that Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley were not putting forward witnesses so he wanted both parties to summarise.

Mrs Kane asked if Cllr Ian Lewis (her McKenzie Friend) could summarise for her? District Judge Woodburn said “no”. She asked what about Martin Woodley? District Judge Woodburn said that Mr. Woodley was in the same position and that he thought both defendants could summarise in their own words what the case about. He said that they (the defendants) had done well up to now regarding their views. He said to summarise what the case is ultimately about is the fact that they didn’t apply to the court for a new tenancy, they said they didn’t do so because of what they were told which is their sole contention.

Mrs Kane summarises
Mrs Kane said that in forty years they’d never had a penny off Wirral Council. She continued by saying that many years ago when Wirral Council told them that they were moving them to a different place that Wirral Council had changed their minds and said they would not build on that site so they’d decided to stay. She said that they’d made new fences at a cost of thousands of pounds and repaired them after a storm. Mrs Kane said that she had been asking Wirral Council to be lenient about the cost of renewing the lease but they’d been stopped from renewing only because they were guilty of believing and trusting what Wirral Council were saying.

Mrs Woodley summarises
District Judge Woodburn asked if Mrs Woodley had anything to say? Mrs Woodley said that she agreed with her mother. She said that when they contacted Cllr Ian Lewis that he had confirmed that they must have taken the decision not to renew the lease. District Judge Woodburn referred to the evidence of David Dickenson with regards to his instructions. Mrs Woodley said that it was not from the Council. District Judge Woodburn said “that may be the case”. Mrs Woodley said that their “only crime was to trust” and that Wirral Council made it “impossible to renew the lease” and had done “everything possible to stop” them.

Sarah O’Brien (barrister for Wirral Council) summarises
District Judge Woodburn asked Sarah O’Brien to summarise Wirral Council’s case. Sarah O’Brien said that what the solicitor had provided was the prescribed form from the HMCS [Her Majesty’s Courts Service] website and that it was a standard form.

Ed – although she’s just repeating what she’s been told, the HMCS website doesn’t actually have this on it. The prescribed forms are part of the legislation and are on this website Schedule 2 of SI 2004/1005 (The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004), a site that has UK laws on it run by the National Archives.

District Judge Woodburn said “yes, thanks”. Sarah O’Brien said that she would be very brief. Sarah O’Brien said the tenancy was properly terminated in accordance with the Act and that the only defence raised was estoppel. District Judge Woodburn said that the evidence of the two parties was different as to whether there was a binding agreement which would mean an application to the court was not required.

Sarah O’Brien referred to evidence that contradicted that assertion, as the defendant had sent a letter proposing alternative terms. She said that the defendants say that the communication with David Dickenson was highly relevant and important but that it didn’t appear in their defences which is not to say it didn’t take place. District Judge Woodburn asked someone to please not interrupt her.

Sarah O’Brien referred to pages thirty-seven and thirty-eight which referred to chasing a response. She said that if she had received an assurance regarding the terms agreed, then there was no need to be chasing a response. Miss O’Brien said that the evidence did not support the assertion that new terms were agreed.

The second point Miss O’Brien made was a further suggestion that David Dickenson had told Mrs Kane categorically that she did not need to apply to the Court. If this had been said they why didn’t it form part of the defence rather than vague assertions such as being told “not to worry”? Miss O’Brien said that the only reason was that it was not said. She continued by saying that the assertion made that David Dickenson told her “not to worry” needed a clear context and the representation was too vague for it to be reasonable that it could be relied upon.

Miss O’Brien said that the notices were received and read and it was not a question that they were prevented or couldn’t make an application to the court and that was why the lease was not protected. She said that whether Wirral Council agreed to the terms or there was estoppel were facts, therefore Wirral Council should be entitled to a possession order.

District Judge Woodburn said he was going to take a break to consider, then he would invited people back and give judgement on the factual issues. He thought it was best for everyone to have a break. He would let the usher and clerk know when he was ready. The court usher would then ask people to come back in.

Continues at District Judge Woodburn grants Wirral Council possession order: pony club given a year to leave Fernbank Farm.

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

Mrs Kane faces questions from Sarah O’Brien (barrister) and District Judge Woodburn in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Mrs Kane faces questions from Sarah O’Brien (barrister) and District Judge Woodburn in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Mrs Kane faces questions from Sarah O’Brien (barrister) and District Judge Woodburn in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

                        

Continues from Mrs Kane takes the witness stand in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm).

Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (case 3BI05210)
Birkenhead County Court
13th February 2014
Court Room 1

Mrs Kane on the witness stand
Mrs Kane continued by saying that after her letter, she spoke to David Dickenson and told him she was going to hospital and that she wanted it all sorted before that.

Mrs Kane is cross-examined by Sarah O’Brien
District Judge Woodburn gave Sarah O’Brien (barrister for Wirral Council) an opportunity to cross-examine Mrs Kane. Sarah O’Brien asked Mrs Kane if she had said that she rang David Dickenson in May 2013 as Mrs Kane was concerned she had not heard from him? Mrs Kane replied “yes”.

Sarah O’Brien said something I couldn’t hear to which Mrs Kane replied that she’d been told that she’d hear from them [Wirral Council] about the new lease but she didn’t hear until 2012.

Wirral Council’s barrister asked Mrs Kane when she received the eviction notice had she read it? Mrs Kane answered yes. To clarify whether she was answering yes to receiving the notice or having read it District Judge Woodburn asked her if she’d read the eviction notice to which she answered that she had read the notice yes.

Miss O’Brien said that Mrs Kane had told David Dickenson she wanted to renew the lease on the Council’s terms, however that she was only prepared to renew on new terms. Mrs Kane explained she had asked him if he could help with the expenses as previously the legal fees had been reduced from £500 to £300. The only other term that she wanted changed was a rent increase of 2.5% and David Dickenson had told her he would make a site visit to discuss it.

Sarah O’Brien said that the letter sent sets out Mrs Kane’s terms which were not the same terms that were put forward by Wirral Council. Mrs Kane said that she wanted to renew the lease and had spoken to David Dickenson and told him that if he couldn’t do anything then to send the papers back to her. She had told David Dickenson that she wanted negotiations on the lease finished by the end of May and referred to an email from David Dickenson that stated that Mrs Kane had until May 31st.

The barrister for Wirral Council said that there was no reference in the defence to terms being agreed. Mrs Kane had that a “lot has gone missing”. Sarah O’Brien said it was a fact that terms (for the new lease) were suggested. District Judge Woodburn said that it was an important point if it’s said that Wirral Council accepted the terms of the new lease.

Mrs Kane referred to a telephone call. Sarah O’Brien asked her when the telephone call was? She answered towards the end of April. Mrs Kane said that she had been trying to get in touch with David Dickenson but all her called were being ignored. There had been no response to her letters and since 2012 David Dickenson had ignored her phone calls.

She had said that she had spoken with David Dickenson on the phone twice, but at all other times she had been told her was on site visits, in a meeting, that he would get back to her or that his father had died. Mrs Kane understood David Dickenson was a busy man but he was not answering her.

Sarah O’Brien said that she (Mrs Kane) didn’t get an answer to her letter to David Dickenson. She referred to page thirty-eight in the bundle and a reference to a phone call of 23rd May where it stated that Mrs Kane was awaiting a response (to her letter). Mrs Kane said that David Dickenson was ignoring her phone calls. Sarah O’Brien said that she didn’t contact David Dickenson as there was no reference in the earlier document.

Mrs Kane referred to emails which said to answer Mrs Kane’s phone calls and that this was in Wirral Council’s emails. Sarah O’Brien said that it was clear from the record of the phone call that at that point Mrs Kane hadn’t had a response (from David Dickenson). Mrs Kane said she had rung Mr. Dickenson and told him that they were willing to pay but if he can’t do it to send it back and that Mr. Dickenson knew that, she hadn’t been able to get in touch with Mr. Dickenson since. In 2012 she was told that Mr. Dickenson was at a funeral and that Peter Jones could take over.

Sarah O’Brien referred to the document containing the original defence and the point where Mrs Kane said that David Dickenson said “not to worry”. Mrs Kane said that at the beginning of May she couldn’t get in touch with David Dickenson and that he’d had the “shock of his life” when he answered the phone to her. She had asked him to send her an email if he could not do anything and to send the forms back, the public liability insurance receipt and the cheques. Mr. Dickenson had told her “not to worry” because he’d do it.

The barrister for Wirral Council asked her if in the same conversation that David Dickenson says he accepted the terms, to which Mrs Kane answered “yep”. Sarah O’Brien said that conversation was at the beginning of May and referred to something that referred to Mrs Kane phoning and saying she had had no response to her letter. Mrs Kane referred to an email that showed that David Dickenson knew about the deadline of the 31st May. Sarah O’Brien said she had no further questions for Mrs Kane.

District Judge Woodburn asks Mrs Kane questions
District Judge Woodburn referred to page eighteen and the eviction notice. He directed Mrs Kane to paragraph four which stated “If we cannot agree on all the terms of a new tenancy, either you or I may ask the court to order the grant of a new tenancy” and paragraph 5 which stated “If you wish to ask the court for a new tenancy you must do so by the date in paragraph 2” which was the 31st May 2013.

Mrs Kane said that she had spoken with Mr. Dickenson at the beginning of May to tell him and asked him about it and she’d asked Mrs Carman. When she’d asked Mrs Carman who was taking over Mrs Carman had answered Peter Jones. Mrs Kane said that she’d been told by Mr. Dickenson that if they were negotiating a new lease that she didn’t need to apply to the court. District Judge Woodburn said that Wirral Council hadn’t agreed anything and that there was no evidence of any agreement by Wirral Council.

Continues at Cross-examination of Kane & Woodley, parties summarise their case in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm).

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

Mr Dickenson only following orders & describes cancer patient as “unwell” in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Mr Dickenson only following orders & describes cancer patient as “unwell” in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

Mr Dickinson only following orders & describes cancer patient as “unwell” in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm)

             

Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (case 3BI05210)
Birkenhead County Court
13th February 2014
Court Room 1

Continues from Notices, Bill Norman’s letter and David Dickenson takes the stand in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm).

David Dickenson (Wirral Council’s witness)
One of the defendants asked David Dickenson when Wirral Council voted to change their policy? David Dickenson said he didn’t know as it was a “planning matter”. However he stated that it was October time when it came into force. District Judge Woodburn asked David Dickenson which year he was referring to, he replied “October 2012”.

A defendant asked why David Dickenson had tried to deceive and who gave him authority to do so? David Dickenson replied that he had been instructed by the Asset Manager. District Judge Woodburn said to David Dickenson that he thought he was a manager. David Dickenson replied that he worked in asset management as a surveyor. District Judge Woodburn asked if Tony Simpson had agreed to the notice? David Dickenson answered yes but also with the legal department.

Only following orders
A defendant asked why the lease was terminated before the policy was changed? David Dickenson replied that that was what he was instructed to do. District Judge Woodburn pointed out that he [Mr. Dickenson] had already gone through that and that David Dickenson had been instructed to do so by Tony Simpson.

The defendant said that if councillors hadn’t agreed the change in policy David Dickenson wasn’t authorised to do so. David Dickenson just replied that that wasn’t a landlord/tenant issue. District Judge Woodburn said to David Dickenson “let me decide”. The defendant said that the emails about the change back it up with details.

Stopped from paying the rent
She said going to not paying the rent, there were letters about how to stop Fernbank Farm paying the rent, they were told they could stay but the account number was changed so that Wirral Council would not accept the rent. The rent had been paid on the first of each month but their payments were returned.

David Dickenson replied that he had not changed anything to do with it, but when the lease ended on the 31st May Wirral Council were not accepting any payment so the Finance Department closed the account. The defendant said she had got copies of emails and knew councillors had not changed the policy when the lease was terminated. District Judge Woodburn said that she was straying into different areas. He said there was a change of policy, however the notice was sent out before the change. He asked that her questions to the witness were ones that the witness could reasonably respond to.

Wirral Council ignore a terminally ill woman
The defendant said that emails were sent to the court, but when the bundle (prepared by Wirral Council) came back that the emails were all removed from the bundle. She said that not accepting rent after the 31st May was to try to stop them from renewing the lease. District Judge Woodburn asked if she had any more questions? She asked David Dickenson why he had gone out of his way not to renew a protected lease? He answered that she knew the answers why he didn’t return her calls and referred to the change of policy. The defendant said that that was before the lease ran out which was only on the 31st May. She said to the witness David Dickenson, “Did I not speak to you and say I was going to hospital for radium treatment regarding a tumour?”

Wirral Council’s witness describes defendant with cancer as being “unwell”
David Dickenson replied that he didn’t know the details, but he knew she was unwell. The defendant said she had wanted the lease sorted out before her treatment and didn’t David Dickenson say he’d “see to it”? David Dickenson denied that he’d said that.

The defendant said that in negotiations on the previous lease that Wirral Council wanted a 2.5% rise and £300 in legal fees to Wirral Council. She had written a letter detailing how the defendants had covered the costs of repairs caused by storm damage and the letter was asking if there was any way to reduce the legal fees. She said that the letter also stated if Wirral Council couldn’t do anything then it requested that they send it back to her. David Dickenson just stated that he hadn’t said to her not to apply (to the court). District Judge Woodburn asked if she had more questions?

The missing email
The defendant referred to an email from Mrs Carmen to David Dickenson. She said that this email referred to the defendant wanting a record of the decision not to renew the lease. David Dickenson referred to the bundle. The defendant said there was some documents that were missing that were incriminating. District Judge Woodburn said that she may be missing the point of the hearing.

He asked a question to David Dickenson to which he answered no. District Judge Woodburn thanked David Dickenson. Before he left District Judge Woodburn referred to the change of policy in October 2012 and queried as to whether this changed the terms of the notice that had gone out as the notice said that Wirral Council wouldn’t oppose renewing the lease?

Squaring the circle
David Dickenson replied that it was to do with planning policy and again referred to his line manager. District Judge Woodburn asked if his instructions weren’t contrary to the terms of the notice? David Dickenson agreed that his instructions were contrary to the notice. District Judge Woodburn asked him how he squared the circle and dealt with the lease renewal?

Mr. Dickenson said that if it went past the 31st May and the defendants had not applied to the court or agreed a lease then Wirral Council had more options for the land. District Judge Woodburn asked what happened after October? David Dickenson replied that “plans changed”. District Judge Woodburn asked if the position was to serve the notices and see if an application was made?

David Dickenson said that in November he had made enquiries and again referred to his manager. District Judge Woodburn asked how that would be put into effect if the defendants had applied for a new lease? Mr Dickenson said that if the defendants had applied to the court, Wirral Council would have had to do nothing, but that there had been no discussions on that matter.

David Dickenson was told to keep his mouth shut so that Wirral Council would get a “windfall”
District Judge Woodburn referred to the policy from October 2012. David Dickenson replied to his comment. District Judge Woodburn asked if David Dickenson had been told not to engage in discussions with the defendants between November 2012 and May 2013? David Dickenson replied yes and that he was told not to agree to new terms. District Judge Woodburn asked if he was told not to engage in discussions? David Dickenson replied yes, but that he had to answer the phone. District Judge Woodburn said that if nothing happened by May 2013 then Wirral Council would get a windfall?

David Dickenson replied a potential windfall as no decision had been made what to do. District Judge Woodburn said that the policy changed and David Dickenson received instructions, therefore there would’ve been a windfall. He thanked David Dickenson.

Continues at Mrs Kane takes the witness stand in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm).

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