Can I sue my council
Discussion
Ignoring the OP and in an attempt to salvage something from all this - I've bought and sold houses with a query about planning that couldn't be quickly or easily resolved. - both related to permitted development rights but no positive evidence from planning that they thought it was acceptable. In both cases insurance was taken out to cover the risk of there being a subsequent problem.
Should this not have been put in place or would the conditions for doing so not been met?
Should this not have been put in place or would the conditions for doing so not been met?
Tenpenceshort - full name and address pronto please.
I plan on submitting a small number of low value, vexatious claims against you. It's for you to work out if fighting me is worth the effort or whether you should just pay up. I recommend you just send me some cash and we shall consider the matter closed.
I plan on submitting a small number of low value, vexatious claims against you. It's for you to work out if fighting me is worth the effort or whether you should just pay up. I recommend you just send me some cash and we shall consider the matter closed.
Breadvan72 said:
Yeah, slam dunker. As a bonus, the OP can use the money to sue the Government for not telling him to change some ten year old tyres on his motorhome (see a nearby thread). It's always someone else's fault.
You can make light of this situation... But the op won't be the only one without a house once they are done with you! I am feeling charitable, so have even done the OP's Googling for him.
Senior Courts Act 1981
31. Application for judicial review.
(1)An application to the High Court for one or more of the following forms of relief, namely—
(a)a mandatory, prohibiting or quashing order;]
(b)a declaration or injunction under subsection (2); or
(c)an injunction under section 30 restraining a person not entitled to do so from acting in an office to which that section applies,shall be made in accordance with rules of court by a procedure to be known as an application for judicial review.
...
(3)No application for judicial review shall be made unless the leave of the High Court has been obtained in accordance with rules of court; and the court shall not grant leave to make such an application unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.
...
(6)Where the High Court considers that there has been undue delay in making an application for judicial review, the court may refuse to grant—
(a)leave for the making of the application; or
(b)any relief sought on the application,if it considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration.
(7)Subsection (6) is without prejudice to any enactment or rule of court which has the effect of limiting the time within which an application for judicial review may be made.
Civil Procedure Rules
54.1
(1) This Section of this Part contains rules about judicial review.
(2) In this Section –
(a) a ‘claim for judicial review’ means a claim to review the lawfulness of –
(i) an enactment; or
(ii) a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.
...
54.5
...
(1) The claim form must be filed –
(a) promptly; and
(b) in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose.
(2) The time limits in this rule may not be extended by agreement between the parties.
(3) This rule does not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review.
(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply in the cases specified in paragraphs (5) and (6).
(5) Where the application for judicial review relates to a decision made by the Secretary of State or local planning authority under the planning acts, the claim form must be filed not later than six weeks after the grounds to make the claim first arose.
Limitation Act 1980
2 Time limit for actions founded on tort.
An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
Senior Courts Act 1981
31. Application for judicial review.
(1)An application to the High Court for one or more of the following forms of relief, namely—
(a)a mandatory, prohibiting or quashing order;]
(b)a declaration or injunction under subsection (2); or
(c)an injunction under section 30 restraining a person not entitled to do so from acting in an office to which that section applies,shall be made in accordance with rules of court by a procedure to be known as an application for judicial review.
...
(3)No application for judicial review shall be made unless the leave of the High Court has been obtained in accordance with rules of court; and the court shall not grant leave to make such an application unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.
...
(6)Where the High Court considers that there has been undue delay in making an application for judicial review, the court may refuse to grant—
(a)leave for the making of the application; or
(b)any relief sought on the application,if it considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration.
(7)Subsection (6) is without prejudice to any enactment or rule of court which has the effect of limiting the time within which an application for judicial review may be made.
Civil Procedure Rules
54.1
(1) This Section of this Part contains rules about judicial review.
(2) In this Section –
(a) a ‘claim for judicial review’ means a claim to review the lawfulness of –
(i) an enactment; or
(ii) a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.
...
54.5
...
(1) The claim form must be filed –
(a) promptly; and
(b) in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose.
(2) The time limits in this rule may not be extended by agreement between the parties.
(3) This rule does not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review.
(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply in the cases specified in paragraphs (5) and (6).
(5) Where the application for judicial review relates to a decision made by the Secretary of State or local planning authority under the planning acts, the claim form must be filed not later than six weeks after the grounds to make the claim first arose.
Limitation Act 1980
2 Time limit for actions founded on tort.
An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
photosnob said:
Breadvan72 said:
Yeah, slam dunker. As a bonus, the OP can use the money to sue the Government for not telling him to change some ten year old tyres on his motorhome (see a nearby thread). It's always someone else's fault.
You can make light of this situation... But the op won't be the only one without a house once they are done with you! hunton69 said:
Thank you for your replies.
Wow
You know the answers and yet you don't know all the facts.
And your in the legal profession.
The information I have revealed on this forum is just the tip of the ice berg.
But I think you are missing the point.Wow
You know the answers and yet you don't know all the facts.
And your in the legal profession.
The information I have revealed on this forum is just the tip of the ice berg.
You could have the best case in the world to prove your point. But if you have passed the time limit...
...are you passed the time limit for this claim?
photosnob said:
Tenpenceshort - full name and address pronto please.
I plan on submitting a small number of low value, vexatious claims against you. It's for you to work out if fighting me is worth the effort or whether you should just pay up. I recommend you just send me some cash and we shall consider the matter closed.
No probs. Send me your address, DOB and account details and I'll ensure you get what's coming to you.I plan on submitting a small number of low value, vexatious claims against you. It's for you to work out if fighting me is worth the effort or whether you should just pay up. I recommend you just send me some cash and we shall consider the matter closed.
Vaud said:
But I think you are missing the point.
You could have the best case in the world to prove your point. But if you have passed the time limit...
...are you passed the time limit for this claim?
Quite so. Note that on page one I mentioned the three month time limit for a judicial review claim, but when mentioning that I had forgotten that in a planning case the time limit is even shorter - it's six weeks. You could have the best case in the world to prove your point. But if you have passed the time limit...
...are you passed the time limit for this claim?
The OP complains of a failure by the Council to take action against someone else in 2007. That is a public law claim. By public law I mean the law concerning the exercise of powers and duties by public authorities. The time limit for making that claim expired in 2007.
This leaves private law, by which I mean the law concerning relationships between natural and legal persons. This includes contract and tort (A tort is a civil wrong. Negligence is a tort). The relevant time limits there are six years. There are some limited exceptions to this. None apply here. Thus, if the OP says that the Council owed him a duty of care* (ie a negligence claim), the time limit for such a claim expired in 2013.
* It almost certainly didn't, for reasons explained in some lengthy House of Lords decisions about duties owed by public bodies.
Just to add some credibility to mr breadvan.
I've been arrested many times, have got a library of 3 law books, have watched all episodes of both silks and judge john deed, and I too agree that the case does not look promising.
If anyone has any more questions I will be happy to answer them.
I've been arrested many times, have got a library of 3 law books, have watched all episodes of both silks and judge john deed, and I too agree that the case does not look promising.
If anyone has any more questions I will be happy to answer them.
Breadvan72 said:
You can sometimes persuade a court to extend the JR time limit if you can show good reasons for doing so. Apply in 2014 for an extension of a time limit that expired in 2007, when the OP has known about the thing that bothers him for months or years? Chances of success: nil.
Agree in terms of the OP's case, I was just making a genedral point about JR and planning.I have forgotton the original post onthe thread and havent paid all that much attention to the timings, but it certainly looks as thoughthe op hasn't taken any professional advice, but I also thinkthat the enforecement team are being difficult.
I am sure that a professional would handle it better.
(Edited to add)
I always employ consultants/lawyers etc to deal with planning now, as generally the whole process and attitude of the officers makes me pretty angry
photosnob said:
Just to add some credibility to mr breadvan.
I've been arrested many times, have got a library of 3 law books, have watched all episodes of both silks and judge john deed, and I too agree that the case does not look promising.
If anyone has any more questions I will be happy to answer them.
Hey, you never forget your first prison sex, eh? I've been arrested many times, have got a library of 3 law books, have watched all episodes of both silks and judge john deed, and I too agree that the case does not look promising.
If anyone has any more questions I will be happy to answer them.
Breadvan72 said:
Hey, you never forget your first prison sex, eh?
The officer said he needed to do an internal exam for drugs. I thought he was being professional until I felt both hands on my shoulders.That said, there is a reason why everyone can't wait to go back. I want judge rinder to represent me the next time I'm in trouble. Rumour has it that he goes the extra mile to get his clients off.
Breadvan72 seems to have introduced a variety of matters of points of law which read in conjuction with the infirmation provided by the OP, are most informative. Sadly, these do not seem to resonate well for any claim or action by the OP, in this case. These are of course, based upon the infformation proferred by the OP in this thread. If the OP wishes to proceed he needs to act.
Regrettably as Breadvan72 suggests on here it does appear that the chances of success are slim. I have suggested my doubts on here about the probability of success in ths matter for the OP before. Given the pretty detailed information now provided by Breadvan on the law involved I can only reiterate I have my doubts as to whether the case can be won by the OP.
It really does come down to the OP taking the decision and proceeding if that is the decision. I do wish him well. I can understand that he is very frustrated at what he regards as unfair practice. However based upon the actual information provided and the illustration of the actual requirements of the law as described by Breadvan72 I do have serious doubts and were I meeting the costs I do not think I would be proceding. But its entirely up to the OP to decide what he wants to do.
Regrettably as Breadvan72 suggests on here it does appear that the chances of success are slim. I have suggested my doubts on here about the probability of success in ths matter for the OP before. Given the pretty detailed information now provided by Breadvan on the law involved I can only reiterate I have my doubts as to whether the case can be won by the OP.
It really does come down to the OP taking the decision and proceeding if that is the decision. I do wish him well. I can understand that he is very frustrated at what he regards as unfair practice. However based upon the actual information provided and the illustration of the actual requirements of the law as described by Breadvan72 I do have serious doubts and were I meeting the costs I do not think I would be proceding. But its entirely up to the OP to decide what he wants to do.
Jon1967x said:
Ignoring the OP and in an attempt to salvage something from all this - I've bought and sold houses with a query about planning that couldn't be quickly or easily resolved. - both related to permitted development rights but no positive evidence from planning that they thought it was acceptable. In both cases insurance was taken out to cover the risk of there being a subsequent problem.
Should this not have been put in place or would the conditions for doing so not been met?
Insurance is usually obtained when either required by law or risk. I'm not sensing OP felt any even remote risk at the time. If he had and had looked into it, the difficulty of insuring may have pinged some concern over what, without being unkind, were massive assumptions.Should this not have been put in place or would the conditions for doing so not been met?
pork911 said:
Jon1967x said:
Ignoring the OP and in an attempt to salvage something from all this - I've bought and sold houses with a query about planning that couldn't be quickly or easily resolved. - both related to permitted development rights but no positive evidence from planning that they thought it was acceptable. In both cases insurance was taken out to cover the risk of there being a subsequent problem.
Should this not have been put in place or would the conditions for doing so not been met?
Insurance is usually obtained when either required by law or risk. I'm not sensing OP felt any even remote risk at the time. If he had and had looked into it, the difficulty of insuring may have pinged some concern over what, without being unkind, were massive assumptions.Should this not have been put in place or would the conditions for doing so not been met?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff