Ian Lewis | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Kingsway, funding and hydrotherapy pools (part 6)

Next Monday evening (starting at 6.15pm), at a meeting of all councillors at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street in the Council Chamber the issue of Lyndale School is on the agenda again. There is a notice of motion on it (which is the second notice of motion in that list of notices of motion) proposed by Councillor Paul Hayes and seconded by Councillor Jeff Green. As it’s short a copy of the notice of motion that councillors will be voting on is below:

Council, having regard to the support given to the campaign to keep the Lyndale School open by the public of Wirral, resolves that:

1. It is the firm belief of Council that the Lyndale School should remain open, and in order to bring to an end the anguish and uncertainty suffered by pupils and their parents and carers, calls upon Cabinet to confirm that the school will remain open when Cabinet next meets.

2. Council recognises the unique and caring environment provided by the Lyndale School to children with profound and multiple learning difficulties. Council acknowledges the value of this provision and affirms its belief that such provision should remain at the Lyndale School.

3. Council instructs officers to work with the Wirral School’s Forum in order to investigate how the funding of Wirral’s Special Schools can more closely reflect the will of Wirral’s residents, as expressed by the huge support given to the Lyndale School: that the quality and scale of provision for children requiring the services of special schools in Wirral should continually strive to improve and be in no way diminished.

Once the notice of motion is debated, all councillors present at the meeting (apart from the Mayor who traditionally abstains) will have to either vote for, against or abstain. Probably five or more councillors will call for a card vote which means each councillors name will be individually read out and they’ll have to say which way they are voting.

Mindful of the upcoming debate, I therefore thought I’d continue my write up of the last consultation meeting held at the Acre Lane Professional Excellence Centre just before the consultation ended. If you’re interested in the last bit I wrote about this meeting, it can be found on this blog at “Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about the sensory garden, resources, Elleray Park and Stanley (Part 5)“.

David Armstrong said, “In terms of Kingsway, it’s difficult to talk about the school and then appeal. Kingsway was in the final round within six years of primary reviews, Kingsway was in the final round and the decision was that we would review Kingsway at a future date, the date was set for some date but we’ve actually left it longer than that.

We had a hundred primary schools, we went down to ninety, of that ninety there are four that still struggle financially under those arrangements. Struggle to set a balanced budget because of their numbers, it is problematic. It’s a mainstream school who gets its funding in different ways, it can set and does set a balanced budget.

The issue about Lyndale is its financial stability in the long-term because it is the local context of Lyndale is there, there’s also the national context identified and I’ve assured Members of that expression. In Kingsway, we haven’t gone back, but at some point there’s a Council resolution to go back and revisit Kingsway.

I’ll make it clear, it’s not about the quality of the education or about the quality of the school, I must clearly point out, this is not about any failings at Lyndale, it’s about the medium to long-term financial stability at Lyndale. It’s about can we promise when they’re putting their child in there aged four, can we promise that that school they’re attending will be there for ever and ever?”

Julia Hassall said, “Ian, I would just add, in terms of the Lyndale School, there’s been concerns about the future of the school going back to about 2008/9 and I think that that concentrates my mind throughout all of this process and genuinely thinking about the best needs of how we meet the needs of the children is I want to be able to put something forward and Cabinet will make their own view, put something forward that is about the long-term sustainability.”

Ian Lewis said, “Well I accept all you’ve said. Five years ago as Councillor Mitchell said, a resolution goes to full Council and every single one of those sixty-six councillors said keep this school open. That was five years ago and right now the concerns about viability if you’d listened then, when we told you to keep it open, the message is keep it open, not come back, not keep coming back and trying to close it because you think you’re right.”

Julia Hassall replied, “No, no, the significant difference Ian now to five years ago, is the government have changed the funding formula. So Lyndale is currently funded as if there were actually forty children in that school and over the last seven years, the numbers have gone down. It’s been about fifty odd percent occupancy in the school and following the exact funding formula, it will mean that at some point, the £10,000 per a child will have to be applied and that will mean £230,000 for twenty-three children as opposed to £400,000 because there aren’t the children in the places.”

Ian Lewis said, “Will that financial cost be disbursed with the children from Lyndale wherever they went?”

Julia Hassall replied, “No.”

Ian Lewis asked another question to which Julia Hassall replied, “The bit that comes into play is that if you are part of a bigger school you have the hydrotherapy pool for example will be there for the whole school population.”

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Funding, banding and need (part 7).

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

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about the sensory garden, resources, Elleray Park and Stanley (Part 5)

Continues from Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about Stanley, Elleray, Foxfield & the educational psychologist (Part 4).

The next question was about the £80,000 that had been raised by the public to pay for a sensory garden at Lyndale School. He asked what plans do they have for the sensory garden and how would you plan to get the money back to the people that donated it?

Phil Ward answered, “Well what it is, if a school, my colleagues can talk about the buildings on the site, but if a school does close clearly there would be in keeping, well we don’t know. We don’t know”.. “well resources that can be used, well resources that can be used certainly”… David Armstrong said, “It’s a what if question because there’s no decision made. There’s no real gardens, there’s no decision been taken to determine it.” The questioner replied with, “Well I’m sure if we knew at the time that there was the chance that all our hard work would be”… “we would not have done all that hard work.” to which David Armstrong replied, “All I will say is, all I will say is, that certainly in my time here we’ve always treated the school sites, what I’ve tried to do is do it with real sensitivity to what’s been the best care that I can.”

The questioner said it was a very, very unique school. David Armstrong replied with, “What we’ve done is anything that related to a particular pupil, anything that was in memory of a particular pupil we’ve dealt with that first and then we’ve gone on from that”…. The questioner asked who put the amphitheatre at the back of Lyndale School to which David Armstrong replied, “I don’t know.” The person asking the question said it was put there by lads working on a Youth Training Scheme for Wirral Action to which David Armstrong replied, “I can’t know every single detail.”

Phil Ward said, “Well clearly we’ve closed that one down, time moves on, there are different circumstances and we are where we are now.”

Ian Lewis said, “Four years ago, when I was a member of the Cabinet, the officers insisted on .. the officers brought a recommendation to close the Kingsway Primary School in Seacombe. It wasn’t a special school, it isn’t a special school and the argument for closing the school was that it isn’t financially viable.

I and the rest of the Cabinet voted against that proposal and four years later that school is still open and in its recent OFSTED inspection it was found to be outstanding. So on what basis do you think that, for the two directors, on the basis that this here is a school is for children who are vulnerable? If in four years time that’s still here, who’s to say it won’t be viable?”…

“Secondly, you mentioned the teaching in the other schools that you’re proposing Elleray Park and Stanley. That as I understand it won’t be one to one as we currently have at Lyndale, so issues such as basic issues such as toileting they would be left. If the children going to Lyndale, assuming this proposal went through, the children from Lyndale went to those other two schools and if their current level of education was to be maintained I would expect that they would have one to one levels of support as they have now, wouldn’t that therefore affect the viability of those schools that they were going to if they’re having to increase staffing to cope with the one to one and that’s a question to the two directors.”

Phil Ward said, “Well I’ll just reply to the one question if I may..”

Ian Lewis replied, “Sorry, I’m not familiar with who you are. Who are you?”

Phil Ward replied, “I’m the Strategic Lead for Special Educational Needs for Wirral. The question of one to one,…”

Ian Lewis said, “Can I ask the directors that question please?”

Phil Ward said, “If you’ll let me get to the last bit, the question of, I’ll bring them in in a sec, the question of one to one, I’ve spoken with the headteachers at the other schools and the basic premise that we’re working on and the staff that we’re working on that every school, every special school in this consultation can provide similar same levels of support to the youngsters if they had to move. It’s all about to the management of the curriculum and staff within the schools. Nothing is ruled out, nothing is impossible. We would not be significantly changing support for the children at the school.”

Ian Lewis replied, “Sorry if you can’t answer a question than I don’t think you should be involved. You haven’t answered the question about the children.” Phil ward interrupts. Ian Lewis continues despite the interruption, “What I’m saying is, let me finish please, what you’ve said is, you will move resources around into the two existing schools because of the increase in, for the children at Lyndale and therefore by definition, the education of the children in these two schools, will be diminished” and again Phil Ward interrupted him and they both started talking at the same time. Ian Lewis continued, “No sorry, will you please let me finish!? Let me continue please! It’s very, very rude for an officer, thank you! What I’m saying to you is, if you’ve got a set finite number of resources and don’t look at me like that I’d appreciate it. If you’ve got a finite number of resources and you share those amongst the number of pupils, then what you’re doing by putting more of those resources onto the children that need it as we have at Lyndale you must be taking those resources from somewhere.”

Phil Ward replied, “Right, I think I’ll bring in the Director on that.”

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Kingsway, funding and hydrotherapy pools (part 6).

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

Wirral Council takes the view that its rights matter more than Wirral citizen’s human rights

Following Friday’s blog post Wirral Council councillors ban filming at public meeting to decide on alcohol licence for Michaels of Moreton shop, there have been some reactions to what happened.

Councillor Stuart Kelly writes:

@level80 Disgraceful footage Bully boy tactics from chair of that committee were appalling Haven't G'ment told councils filming is allowed?

— Stuart Kelly (@CllrSKelly) June 6, 2014

Indeed they have Councillor Kelly. As long ago as February 2011, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Bob O’Neill MP wrote to all Council Leaders and Monitoring Officers. He states in his letter “It is essential to a healthy democracy that citizens everywhere are able to feel that their council welcomes them to observe local decision-making and through modern media tools keep others informed as to what their council is doing.” and “the mainstream media also needs to be free to provide stronger local accountability by being able to film and record in meetings without obstruction”. He goes on to write “I want to encourage all councils to take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wide audience. The public should rightly expect that elected representatives who have put themselves up for public office be prepared for their decisions to be as transparent as possible and welcome a direct line of communication to their electorate.”

In the same letter, the Information Commissioner’s Office stated “In the context of photographing or filming meetings, whilst genuine concerns about being filmed should not be dismissed, the nature of the activity being filmed – elected representatives acting in the public sphere – should weigh heavily against personal objections.” Yet at Wirral Council this advice last Friday was not followed!

Former councillor Ian Lewis states on his new blog “We know most councillors have faces made for radio but their bizarre behaviour at this meeting, over a licensing application in Moreton, sets a new (low) standard”.

So why is Councillor Steve Niblock from the Chair making a unilateral decision about filming on behalf of the three person Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee? Regulation 25 referred to by Ken Abraham states “authority” (which is defined in Regulation 2 as meaning the whole subcommittee) expressing an opinion on disruption, not the Chair unilaterally expressing his opinion and expecting Regulation 25 to apply.

After the public were excluded from the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee meeting on Friday, I had a talk with the legal adviser to the committee Ken Abraham about my concerns about it and that the public hadn’t been excluded properly from the meeting. This was a conversation in a corridor at the Town Hall in front of my wife, so I don’t think there can be any expectation of privacy!

KEN ABRAHAM (legal adviser to the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee)
Can I speak to you after?

JOHN BRACE
I’ve had a chance to have a chat to the objector what it was about and he doesn’t have any objections to me filming. Will there be any problems with me filming the decision?

KEN ABRAHAM
Well it would be useful to find out why you’re filming.

JOHN BRACE
OK.

KEN ABRAHAM
because this is obviously you know, it’s a public Council meeting as in a public Council meeting, this is a what’s known as a public hearing, but there are people who attend who are obviously not aware that they’re going to be filmed so and…

JOHN BRACE
My point about filming, I’ll answer your question about why and then talk a bit about filming. The reason why is because there are people that can’t make it to these meetings, whether they’re at work during the day or

KEN ABRAHAM
People can have a look at the minutes.

JOHN BRACE
Yes, but the minutes aren’t published immediately.

KEN ABRAHAM
but then you could edit the filming.

JOHN BRACE
Err, clearly I could but I don’t. Anyway,

KEN ABRAHAM
The issue is that when you were asked to stop filming the other week, you still continued filming.

JOHN BRACE
No, sorry the other week when I was asked to stop filming I did and then we went out and came back in and it wasn’t clear then as to whether that carried on or not.

KEN ABRAHAM
The stopping filming?

JOHN BRACE
Yeah, because if you remember the other week, the meeting started, they were asked the question about objecting to filming. One person said yes, then we were all asked to go out, then we all came back in again and it wasn’t clear as you’ve said it’s not clear when we came back in again.

To be honest I did say things there but he [Councillor Steve Niblock] didn’t want me to speak anyway, so it’s hardly a valid reason.

KEN ABRAHAM
Well it’s not a public meeting, (at this point I link to Regulation 14 (which states it’s to take place in public), link to 100A and 100E of the Local Government Act 1972 which state otherwise to Ken’s assertion that it isn’t a public meeting. In fact earlier in the conversation he stated it was a public meeting.)

KEN ABRAHAM
and you’re not a representative or the, I I I if you want to talk in more detail I can.

JOHN BRACE
I do want to

KEN ABRAHAM
but I just need to, we’re still in the hearing,

JOHN BRACE
I just want to speak to you in more detail.

KEN ABRAHAM
Maybe if we do that after?

JOHN BRACE
The other very brief point I want to make, the first thing is any decision that a public authority makes has, due to the Human Rights Act 1998 to be compatible with the Convention on Human Rights so one of those rights is regarding freedom of expression and regarding the Article 10 right to freedom of expression there has to be a specific power the Council has in law to stop filming and it has to be for one or more of

KEN ABRAHAM
Yes, I hear you. You’re quoting the law, I know the law. 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 a filming condition to remain, to put the camera off.

JOHN BRACE
Yes, which I did.

KEN ABRAHAM
The licensing regulations are very clear and specific on that point.

JOHN BRACE
Unfortunately the licensing regulations don’t say anything about filming as such.

KEN ABRAHAM
but it talks about, it talks about the, this is why I can’t have a, I can have a discussion but not

JOHN BRACE
The other thing I wanted to say, let me say something. When the public were sent out,

KEN ABRAHAM
Yes.

JOHN BRACE
The law regarding public exclusion, I’m talking about the Local Government Act 1972, states there has to be a resolution and under the terms of [Wirral Council’s] constitution a resolution has to be proposed, seconded and voted on. That didn’t happen.

KEN ABRAHAM
This is a licensing hearing under the hearing regulations,

JOHN BRACE
Yes, but even in the regulations, the licensing regulations, it says they have to consider the public interest in favour of the public [staying] against excluding the public and they didn’t have a discussion about that.

KEN ABRAHAM
There was, there was representations by the Chair, by the individuals attending the meeting and those representations were taken on board. I’ve got to go off.

JOHN BRACE
but you understand my point about the filming issue and the point about the..

KEN ABRAHAM
Well people are entitled to object to that,

JOHN BRACE
and I pointed out I wasn’t filming that side

KEN ABRAHAM
It doesn’t matter, you’re still taking, you’re recording what individuals were saying

JOHN BRACE
Yes.

KEN ABRAHAM
and people can object to that if they’re members of the public.

JOHN BRACE
To be honest, I could just write it down

KEN ABRAHAM
exactly

JOHN BRACE
and type it up

KEN ABRAHAM
exactly, exactly. You could write it up, but at least you know, you know and that’s something that if you’re going to attend regularly, you know, the public needs to be and if it causes disruption at the hearing then we’re quite entitled to say, oh

JOHN BRACE
and can I say there’s also the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations which are going through Parliament and come into effect in a few weeks time.

KEN ABRAHAM
We’re not talking about councillors, we’re talking about members of the public.

JOHN BRACE
but we’re talking about public meetings here, not a public meeting of the full Council. In a few weeks time those regulations will come into effect and they actually prevent the Council from preventing filming at public meetings. They’re in draft form at the moment if you want to look at them.

KEN ABRAHAM
Yeah, well you don’t have to tell me word for word. The regulations are clear on the issue. It gives the Members the leeway to stop if there is a meeting that’s being filmed and the meeting could be disrupted or the hearing could be disrupted, they are entitled to take a view.

JOHN BRACE
Could you show me a copy of the particular regulation or ..

KEN ABRAHAM
Regulation 25,

JOHN BRACE
Regulation 25

KEN ABRAHAM
Licensing [Act 2003] Hearing Regulations [2005], alright and you can actually read the rule, end of story.

JOHN BRACE
OK, but it’s also a public meeting and we have a statutory right to be there.

KEN ABRAHAM
and you have the statutory right to be excluded.

JOHN BRACE
and the thing is right, if I was excluded and asked to leave, I could leave the camera running and leave.

KEN ABRAHAM
No, no, they have the right to exclude you, but the issue has if you’re going to attend these hearings, then members of the public must be aware of that, because they are not aware that you’re doing their filming and we don’t know what’s going to be done when it’s put on the website.

JOHN BRACE
And in fact if I’d answered the question about what the purpose of the filming, but the Chair wouldn’t let me answer it. When I explained it to him he said he had no objection.

KEN ABRAHAM
I said we’d have a discussion, that’s it. We’re not allowing you to have a discussion during

JOHN BRACE
But we’re having one!

KEN ABRAHAM
We’re not having one. Are you aware of the purpose of this discussion? You’re shouting at me!

JOHN BRACE
I’m not!

KEN ABRAHAM
The view that I’m going to take with you isn’t going to change. They tried to make a view on the hearing regulations and you know the people are members of the public and are going to object for whatever reason errm, Members are entitled under the regulations to take a view.

JOHN BRACE
Well actually we disagree on that.

KEN ABRAHAM
Well we’ll agree to disagree then.

Finally I include an email of Surjit Tour sent to me last year.

from: Tour, Surjit
to: john.brace@gmail.com
cc: stephengerrard@wirral.gov.uk
date: 2 April 2013 16:08
subject: RE: filming of public meetings
mailed-by: wirral.gov.uk

Dear Mr Brace

I am on annual leave until 15 April. I am somewhat surprised by your email and letter given that I have asked you a number of times to meet me to discuss this issue.

Furthermore, there no ban on filming as you and another have been filming a number of committee meetings.

I would suggest that no proceedings are issued until I have had the opportunity to respond. I therefore request an extension of time to 30 April.

I await your response.

Please can you also include Stephen Gerrard in any further response.

Yours sincerely

Surjit Tour

Sent from my HTC Touch Pro 2 on Vodafone

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.clearswift.com
**********************************************************************

So it seems two of Wirral Council’s legal team have different views on the filming issue.

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

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	£

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Kingsway, funding and hydrotherapy pools (part 6)

Share this:

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about the sensory garden, resources, Elleray Park and Stanley (Part 5)

Share this:

Wirral Council takes the view that its rights matter more than Wirral citizen’s human rights

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: