The real COST of Human Rights when financiers take over the law!

TAKE NOTE

European Court of Human Rights                                                            Jo Flores

28 July 2014

Jo Flores (nee Gavin) v UK

Further to brief advice from Counsel, kindly provided to me at no charge, I am, with your permission, resubmitting my application within the six month deadline, following exhaustion of domestic remedies, concerning breaches of Articles of the Convention, namely peaceful enjoyment of property and right to a fair trial. I am enclosing a substantively amended statement of facts and, additionally, expanded and comprehensively amended and enhanced legal arguments, with relevant and significantly revised information about my case. I am also sending an extended file of supporting documents, arranged chronologically, with page numbers corresponding to paragraphs within the statement of facts, to support the breaches of Articles complained of.

I am currently in receipt of social security benefit in the UK. I would draw the Court’s attention to my reduced financial circumstances due to the repossession of my business premises resulting in my inability to pay for legal advice to assist with my application and supporting documentation. I have produced and posted this application at considerable cost, paying for photocopies, stationery etc from my very limited resources.

I would be immensely grateful to the Court if it could reconsider my application. I am concerned that, when the Court convened in March, that it may not have had an opportunity to read the document it had asked for, and received, by 4 April. I do apologise if there has been a misunderstanding about the deadline for receipt of the documents or if there was a delay in my response, which was due to mental exhaustion and a stress related condition, as evidenced by attendance at the surgery of my general practitioner, caused by an arduous and gruelling six years as a litigant in person, without legal knowledge or training, and for the most part, without the benefit of public funding or advice.

I have, it is fair to say, suffered prolonged, significant and substantial loss as a result of what I believe to be the unreasonable repossession of my business premises following the landlord/insurers’ failure to adhere to the terms of my lease in relating to the provision of insurance. As a small business woman, without recourse to the not unsubstantial resources at the disposal of the landlord and its insurer, I found myself in an untenable position following leaks and flooding which left the premises entirely unviable as a premises in which to run a business, invite associates, ensure the health and safety of staff, or maintain a professional and presentable profile. Prior to the disrepair I was running a gallery, events management and office hire business. I hosted high profile art exhibitions, ran events for corporate clients and took bookings in relation to the hire of the premises for long and short term office space, product launches and events.

I brought customers, sometimes referred to as ‘footfall’, into an area of Kings Cross, north London, which while ear-marked for its subsequent Eurotunnel/Star regeneration, remained at that time largely underdeveloped. I raised the morale, on a consumer, community and commercial level, among residents and local businesses, many of which benefited from my prestigious and high profile events and exhibitions which increased awareness of the area and drew custom and attention to a neighbourhood within London which could be described as deprived.

Unfortunately, as a result of cuts to the public funding of cases such as mine, I was compelled to represent myself, despite having no prior knowledge, or experience, of the legal system. Even so, due to considerable persistence, tenacity and sheer hard work, I have taken the case through the domestic courts, from lower to higher courts, and successfully argued for an earlier decision to be appealed. The other side, with their vast resources, have vociferously defended the claim, resisting court initiatives at mediation and attempts at an amicable settlement, a process I remain more than willing to engage with.

In the meantime my standing within the local business community and my personal reputation has been damaged and diminished, as has my ability to restore confidence in my professional reputation, although I have slowly, to some degree, managed to recover my professional reputation due to the fact that the forfeiture of my premises is regarded locally, among the business community and residents, as grossly unreasonable.

The time and huge expense, and the emotional repercussions of it,  have had a pronounced and debilitating effect on my health, prospects, and family and professional life.  In these six years of tireless and conscientious representations to the domestic courts, culminating in the exhaustion of all domestic remedies, and leading up to my application to the European Court, I have been increasingly worn down and demoralised by the resistance the other side have demonstrated in trying to arrive at a settlement. I feel they have had an enormous advantage, represented as they are by extremely well resourced teams of legal advisers.

The fact I was granted an appeal I feel shows that my case has merit. As the statement of facts show, unfortunately, the appeal hearing, and the time I had expected to be granted to represent my case, were unfairly curtailed.  I would be so grateful if the Court would honour the decision of this judge who agreed that I had a good and reasonable case, and allow my case before the European Court to be heard.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Jo Flores (nee Gavin)

SUBMITTED APPLICATION to The European Court of Human Rights - France - July 28th 2014

(Text just below as seen at the top of the European Court of Human Rights Application Form)

Subject matter of the application
All the information concerning the facts, complaints and compliance with the requirements of exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention must be set out in this part of the application form (sections E., F. and G.) (Rule 47 § 2 (a)). The applicant may supplement this information by appending further details to the application form. Such additional explanations must not exceed 20 pages (Rule 47 § 2 (b)); this page limit does not include copies of accompanying documents and decisions.

                               European Court of Human Rights - Application form

A. B. C. D. of the Application; The usual name address etc

E. Statement of the facts

Applicant leases premises from Community Housing Association, at 104 Cromer Street, London WC1H 8BZ (June 2000) and 106-108 Cromer Street, London WC1H 8BZ (April 2004) on the understanding they are insured against the risk of damage and business interruption.

Applicant invests significantly in refurbishment of premises.  

Premises at 104 and 106/108 Cromer Street suffer leaks from pipes and external flooding, on at least ten occasions between April 2004 to May 2008, which include and are not confined to: a leak from the stack (sewage) pipe at 104 Cromer Street, reported by Applicant to Community Housing Association and premises closed for repair. Beginning of September, 2004, reported to landlord. Reference, Claimant’s submissions on liability in notes submitted to LJ Ward on Oral Hearing, 10 May 2012;  the flooding of 104 Cromer Street, reported by Applicant to Community Housing Association and 24 June 2005. Reporting to landlord, ref, Claimant’s Submissions on Liability in notes submitted to LJ Ward on Oral Hearing, 10 May 2012;  and a leak from stack (sewage) pipe at 106/108 Cromer Street, 28 February 2005. Reporting to landlord, ref, Claimant’s Submissions on Liability in notes submitted to LJ Ward on Oral Hearing, 10 May 2012.  (P.1-9 of accompanying documents)

Community Housing Association contact Farr PLC the insurance broker. Farr contacts UKU, the building insurers & underwriters. August 2005 – In notes ‘example’ 7-17 submitted to LJ Ward on Oral Hearing, 10 May 2012. (P.10-20)

Preliminary report to UK Underwriting on property owners’ liability (POL), Quest Gates Loss Adjusters, with memo. Report undated. Memo dated, 28th April 2006. In notes submitted to LJ Ward on Oral Hearing, 10 May 2012. ‘Example’ 1-6. (P21-26)

The landlord, Community Housing Association, had threatened to sue its insurer for not subrogating the claim, and paying the insurance to the leaseholder. At this stage the landlord accepted the Applicant had a legitimate claim, and they would be put to a poor defence in court if they did not settle the claim with the insurers. The landlord stated that repairs were not a leaseholder’s responsibility. Example 10, Oral hearing. Email 8 March 2007. (P27)

Community Housing Association takes possession of premises, claiming forfeiture of tenancy for non-payment of rent. October 2008. Proof of Payment handed to Finance Department 31st Oct 2008. (P28)

Application for an injunction to prevent forfeiture/ repossession/amounting to relief from or equivalent to relief from forfeiture (providing proof of rent payment). November 2008. Proof of Payment handed to Court 37 Queens Bench Nov 4th 2008. (P28)

Interim injunction against Community Housing Association, permitting the Applicant to remain at 104 and 106-108 Cromer Street. 4 November 2008. Injunction granted (upon proof or rent payment). (P29-32)

The Order of the High Court for the injunctions to remain and for the case to proceed to the County Court with speed. (P33-40)

Submission of Particulars of Claim, Schedule of Loss filed with the Central London County Court. Particulars of Claim, Schedule of Loss dated 4 December 2008. (41-55)

Smith and Williamson forensic report, produced by the single, joint expert, commissioned by both parties, Doug Hall, Head of Forensic Services, which finds tenants’ losses (net profit, long term contracts) over period of disrepair, are approximately £135,000 - £215,000. Rent paid as ‘gesture of good will’ by tenants/Applicant to Community Housing Association during period of disrepair £45,365. 27. November 2009 - Report excerpts, in summary, 7.4. 13, and 8.1.5 (P56-60)

Judgment Central London County Court. 9 September 2010. Judgment of His Honour Judge Cowell. (P61-85)

Applicant emails Central London County Court requesting approval of Applicant’s notes of judgment. 13 September 2010 - Email from Ms Flores, nee Gavin, to Mr Kapole at Central London County Court. (P86)

17 Sept 2010 the applicant filled in an N244 application, enclosing the ‘claimants submissions on liability’ 92 pages, 245 paragraphs, was submitted to the County Court by the appellant, stating that the claimants submissions had not be heard or read as nothing in the judgment reflected the ‘claimant’s submissions on liability’. Therefore the costs hearing should be stayed because it depended on liability being established.

Central London County Court. 20 September 2010 - His Honour Judge Cowell. The Judge now admits he did not read the Claimant’s Submissions on Liability that were enclosed with the N244 application. (Proof of the Judge not reading the ‘claimants submissions on liability’ before the costs hearing, that was dependent on establishing liability, can be found at the first page of the 22 Sept 10 second Judgment on P110)

Central London County Court. 20 September 2010 - His Honour Judge Cowell. First assessment of damage by negligence of the landlord of 3 weeks. The judge awarded the claimant damages of £100 in full total, for 3 weeks damage at 106-108 Cromer Street. The judge then made an assessment of rent for 104 Cromer Street, WC1, which he raised from £5,500 to £7,500 and for 106-108 Cromer Street, WC1, which he raised from £9,000 to £15,100 (P87-91).

Cost hearing, Central London County Court. 20 September 2010 - His Honour Judge Cowell. The Applicant, Ms Flores’ notes as no official transcript has been received. (P92-108)

Judgment Central London County Court. 22 September 2010. Judgment of His Honour Judge Cowell.  Second Judgment. (P109-114)

Judgment named Supplemental Judgment, 22 September 2010. HHJ Cowell here claims that there was rent owing at the time of re-entry/trespass. Here the judge relieves himself from granting relief from forfeiture as he now states it is out of time and his own jurisdiction he believes cannot cover this, even though he kept this decision for himself throughout trial until the end of trial, where he states, ‘all matter can be determined at trial’, as seen in

11 Aug 2009 Order and Summary of Case in Addition bundle B. (P115-118)

Notice to Appeal, includes issues arising from Human Rights Act 1998 and 13 October 2010 Grounds of Appeal. (P119 to 130, specifically Pages 127-130)

Unreasonable delay in Permission to Appeal application being processed, due to transcripts, that HHJ Cowell had ordered to be obtained before Permission to Appeal could be granted, from the hearing of 9 September 2010, then not having been provided. This hinders and obstructs preparation of the Statement of Case, and the other documents required for the hearing. Skeleton arguments and other documentation are contingent on reference to transcripts.

12 November 2010 and 13 December 2011. Requests for transcripts to Civil Appeal Office by way of correspondence, samples included herewith. (P131-132)

In absence of court transcript, the case lawyer at the Civil Appeals Office, asks solicitor for the other side for her notes of hearing, to put before the Judge to make a decision on merits of case and Permission to Appeal.

Lynsey McIntre, Bircham Dyson Bell, solicitor for Community Housing Association, emails Siobhan Traynor, case manager at Civil Appeals Office, attaching incomplete note, with additions from her own notes of the Judgment. 20 December 2011. Email from Bircham Dyson Bell to Civil Appeals Office. (P133)

In an exchange of emails the applicant writes to Siobhan Traynor at Civil Appeals office to express concern that unapproved note of Judgment by the other side’s solicitor is to be used as primary source of material in assessment of merits of appeal. 27 December 2011. Email from Applicant to Civil Appeals Office. (P134) and referencing 13 Sept 2010 email (P135).

Email from Siobhan Traynor 3 Jan 2012, stating if we disagree with the solicitors notes, we should point out any disagreement by the 9 Jan 2012, just six days later. (P136)

Email from Siobhan Traynor 5 Jan 2012, stating that according to the case lawyer, using CPR 52 PD Para 5.12 the respondents notes can be used. However our objections will be placed before the Judge. (P136)

Email from Siobhan Traynor at Civil Appeals Office to Nikolaus Grubeck, the Judicial Assistant to the Master of the Rolls asking to postpone writing of Bench Memo until the court has received the Applicant’s response to the notes of the other side’s solicitors. 3 January 2012 - Email from Siobhan Traynor to Nikolaus Grubeck. (P155)

At Court’s request, Applicant submits Response to the Notes of the other side with correspondence expressing concern at the haste with which she has been asked to produce her Response, after two years of delays on the part of the Court, its continued failure to produce the transcript, and with reference to the very many representations requesting the transcript. And that the transcript has not been produced, or made available to her. That the decision with regards to permission to appeal will rely on the other side’s note of Judgment, and that this provides Community Housing Association with an unfair advantage. 9 January 2012. Notes of response by Applicant supplied to Court. (P137-154)

Nikolaus Grubeck, Judicial Assistant to the Master of the Rolls, relying on disputed notes of other side’s solicitor, Bircham Dyson Bell, produces Bench Memo drawing on previous draft prepared by Joanna Otterburn (judicial assistant to Master of the Rolls, September 2011) recommending permission to appeal should be refused. 25 January 2012 - Bench Memo (P156-163)

The Applicant further emails the Civil Appeals Office on 2 February 2012 in regards to the addition of the laws/legal argument to the Permission to Appeal application. The Civil Appeals Office reply on 6 February stating that all the documents would be put before the Lord or Lady Justice. Emails (P164-165). The Applicant replies on 6 Feb 2012 and adds in her submissions on the laws based on the information available to her at the time. (P166-186)

Court of Appeal Order refusing permission to appeal, Rt Hon Lord Justice Jacob, based on notes of solicitor. 24 February 2012. Decision relies heavily on notes of the solicitor for Community Housing Association and the Bench Memo. (P187)

Request for oral hearing granted. 24 February 2012.   

Enquiries reflecting the interest that continued in hiring the Applicant’s premises at time of oral hearing, demonstrate the businesses’ viability and ongoing losses. 8 May 2012. Two examples of potential losses of £8333 per months and £10,000 per month submitted to LJ Ward, Oral Hearing, 10 May 2012. (P188-189)

Oral hearing before Lord Justice Ward, Court 74, Royal Courts of Justice. 10 May 2012. Exact copy of what was put before His Honour LJ Ward and read aloud in Court by the applicant representing herself in person. There was National press were at the hearing where the Judge said to the applicant that he understood that all water ingresses had come from outside of her premises and outside of her control. He said, “there is something in that” (P190-195) -

Continued on Page 1-6 of Additional bundle B

Continued Statement of Fact (Pg 1 of 6)

10 May 2012 Order to say that Permission to Appeal and Stay of Execution to be adjourned on notice to the Respondent and that pro-bono help be provided, and for the parties to consider mediation. (P196)

Correspondence between Laura Angus and Melanie Vasilescu, Civil Appeals Office, Royal Courts of Justice, regarding whether Lord Justice Ward may be willing to recommend a pilot mediation scheme. It is the Applicant’s understanding Community Housing Association may have been reluctant to participate in mediation.  (P197-199)

Note to LJ Ward from Laura Angus Lawyer B group, stating that Derek Wood QC, on recommendation from the judge, should be contacted if the Applicant asked for pro-bono help. This intervention is not regarded as independent by the Applicant who suspected that the case was being played with like Russian roulette as there was a legitimate claim, so she worked fast and did her utmost to contact an independent chambers, Garden Court with leading counsel, Jan Luba QC, whose clerk then phoned the pro-bono unit to the offer to do her case. 11 May email from Ms Angus to Ms Vasilescu. Note to Lord Justice Ward: 16 Aug 2012. (P200)

Applicant continues to correspond with the Registrar to access transcripts of original hearing. On 19 June 2012 only the second part of the Judgment 9^th Sept 2010 by HHJ Cowell is sent to her. Email 19 June (P201) and Second Judgment, 22 September 2010. (P202-207)

The Applicant responds to the Judgment in an email to the Civil Appeals Office, addressing inaccuracies in the notes of the other side’s solicitors and how this was unfair. 17 July 2012. (P208-209)

Further representations made to seek transcripts to facilitate preparation of Appeal. 14 Aug 2012 and 10 September 2012. Letters from Garden Court Chambers. (P210-213)

Case Progression Chronology, 22 October 2012, written at Civil Appeals Office with two pages of handwritten notes (and transcription typed by Applicant) regarding getting the specific lawyer Derek Wood and the description of this as “Unorthodox/unusual”. (P214-217)                       

Order, Court of Appeal, granting permission to appeal on 7 of 10 grounds, permission to amend the grounds of the appeal, the granting of a stay. 4 December 2012 Order, Court of the Appeal, on Appeal from the Central London Civil Justice Centre. (P218-219)

Amended Grounds of Appeal of Pro-bono counsel, Jan Luba QC, 16 November 2012. These grounds were completed without Ms Flores yet seeing the advice from junior counsel, which she was provided with only after the hearing. (P220-221)

The Applicant orally asks LJ Ward at the hearing, whether she can further amend the Amended Grounds of Appeal, further to the late advice given by pro-bono Junior Counsel where she may widen the scope of the grounds. LJ Ward agrees. 4 Dec 2013.

N244 Application to amend the grounds of appeal 2a, 2b, 2c, based on statement of fact, with amended grounds of appeal, with factual evidence based on these findings of fact. Submitted 21 March 2013, stamped 29 April 2013. N244 application for amended Grounds of Appeal. The following Skeleton Argument was in the N244 Application too. (P222-250)

Skeleton argument written 17 March 2013 and submitted by Ms Flores nee: Gavin to the Court of Appeal 21 March 2013, drawing partly on the draft Advice from leading Counsel, Jan Luba QC, and in part from junior Counsel. This was after parting with pro-bono counsel, upon inaccurate advice re section 11 of the Housing Act, and since Ms Flores was a commercial leaseholder not a residential tenant, as advised by junior pro-bono counsel, the Applicant had little faith in the pro-bono advice. (P251-284)

The N244 Application was also for the Smith and Williamson report to be referred to in the assessment of damages.  21 March 2013. (P222)

N244 Amended Grounds of Appeal still in application. 31 March 2013. (P285)

Letter acknowledging application, for permission to amend grounds and permission to appeal. The application was clearly not dealt with beforehand, one month and a half later, despite obvious factual evidence, and ‘finding of fact’ by the original trial Judge in the lower, County Court, so now the application to amend will be heard on 2 May 2013 in the Court of Appeal. 29 April 2013. Letter A. Smith Listings Office, Civil Appeals Office. (P285)

A hearing is listed for 1 and 2 May. The date of the hearing is changed to the 2 and 3 May although the Applicant is not informed of the change of date and she does not know until the morning of the 1 May, when she phones the court, for the courtroom number. The other side’s solicitors are, however, informed of the change of date as the applicant subsequently see’s she has an email from them after working hours the day before to tell her of the change of dates.

The hearing takes place. The hearing is allocated two days. It ends prematurely at lunchtime on the second day, 3 May 2013, during the Applicant’s response to the Defendant’s pleadings, and the three judges, without making an announcement, walk out of the court. 2 and 3 May 2013.

A draft Judgment is sent to the Applicant by email. (P286-295). The Applicant replies by email on 17 and 19 May 2013 with evidence and lengthy submissions that the Judgment has misrepresented the Applicant’s case. (P296-299) The Applicant receives no reply to her email. No corrections are made to the Judgment on 24 May 2013. Judgment and Reply to Judgment (P300-316)

N244 request for transcripts of Court of Appeal hearing and a stay of Judgment, with evidence of lengthy submissions of corrections to the draft Judgment made by the Applicant. These submissions centre on her argument that she had pleaded an implied obligation to not breach the terms of the insurance at 5(22) of the lease of her premises, meaning that there had been a breach of the terms of the insurance, (breach of lease and breach of statutory duty) and failure to make insurance claims and/or to notify the insurers of disrepair, and that this created an act of omission, resulting in the leaseholder, by the landlord’s failures, remaining uninsured, and not a repairing obligation, as suggested in the draft Judgment, from the hearing, prior to final Judgment handed down in open court on 24 May 2013 (P317-318)

The Civil Appeals office interrupted Judge Patten in court, with the N244 application, while he was hearing a different case, which was taking place on 23 May, and he quickly refused the N244 application on the same day. It is the Applicant’s contention that the N244 Application was not given due consideration. (P319)

The subsequent Order refused a stay, without reasons given, and without reference to the request for transcripts. (This Order, later sent to the Applicant, was sealed on 24 May 2013. The Order was also received within half an hour of the Applicant applying at the Court on 23 May 2013). (P320)

Although the N244 application had all the reply to judgment notes in full that had already been sent by email, in brief, the main points in the N244 application that were pointed to as inaccurate, were that the Court of Appeal misrepresented the case of the Applicant in the draft Judgment by stating that she had asked for an implied repairing obligation when she had asked for an implied obligation that the landlord did not breach the insurance, seen in 5(22) of the lease contract. The joint insurance was how the disrepair of the development outside of the Applicant’s premises was to be repaired.  Point 15 of Response to Appeal Judgment and thereon throughout response to Judgment P301-316

The full facts in relation to misrepresentation can be found in the Applicant’s Response to the Judgment and need to be read in full. (P300 to P316)

With reference to the insurance, throughout the Judgment, ‘the development’ meant ‘residential premises’ retained by the landlord. This point is not clear in the Judgment so has a perverse effect. The disrepair that damaged the Applicant’s premises came from the residential parts named in the insurance, ‘the development’. Point 4 of the Judgement and Response to the Judgment (P300)

The principle of Ryland and Fletcher of ‘absolute liability’ was said to have not been pleaded by the Applicant. The Applicant had in fact pleaded Ryland and Fletcher in court and in her Skeleton Argument. Point 25 in the Applicant’s Response to the Appeal Judgment. (P304)

Therefore when £100 excesses on each part ‘materially damaged’ were paid for by the claimant, as a result of the disrepair coming from the development, the retained parts, this meant the Applicant incurred the expense of monies paid for the completion of repairs and was reimbursed for the ‘material damage’ minus the £100 for each repair. Point 44 of the Applicant’s Response to the Appeal Judgment (P314)

The issue of ‘cessor of rent’ was then not addressed in the Court of Appeal at all. Since the court insisted that the Applicant had asked for a repair obligation, and so, therefore, all other judgements on the issues stemmed from this basic misrepresentation of the facts presented in the pleading. Points 13 and 14 of the Applicant’s Response to the Appeal Judgment (P301)

The issue of the two surveyors stating that the places were only partially unfit is wholly inaccurate. There was a final single expert surveyor to agree each party’s findings. The single joint expert concluded, after a comprehensive four stage survey, that it had been illegal to trade from one of the premises due to the premises breaching building regulations from day one of the lease and the other premises had suffered an insured risk, a damaged floor, which, to the date of his findings, he said still had not been repaired. Point 46 of the Applicant’s Response to the Appeal Judgment (P315)

The offers to settle have been used as an excuse for indemnity costs, yet the offers were not offers, they were improper inducement and are misrepresented as offers to settle, in the Judgment. Point 47 of the Applicant’s Response to the Appeal Judgment (P315)

The word exaggerated has been used again at the court of appeal, when HHJ Cowell had taken that out of his first Judgment and said instead in his second Judgment, “That any lapse of memory does not indicate deceit.” Exaggerated claim has therefore no basis in the Court of Appeal Judgment and is never explained as to how. The claim for £600,000 was actual loss of business as contended in the Schedule of Loss. However the claim for loss of opportunity for the Applicant’s Social Enterprise, New National Association of Young People in Care, and its Youth Parliament campaign, may be judged to be remote when it comes to costs, but cannot be said to be exaggerated. The Applicant had a right to put it in the claim because the landlord at all times knew of her social enterprise work, for which she was running her businesses. The case cannot be said to be legally unfounded according to 44.4.3 of law and is seen by the Applicant as another tactic for indemnity costs. Points 15, 48 and 49 of the Applicant’s Response to the Appeal Judgment (P301 and P315-316 respectively)

All the arguments in detail including a common law duty to take reasonable care, and the issues of quiet enjoyment, were put in the N244 application in response to the draft.

The N244 application put to the Court of Appeal must form some part of the Judgment.

Court of Appeal Order dismissing appeal. 24 May 2013. The Applicant attended the Judgment and made an oral submission to Judge Patten, which stated that there was nothing in the Judgment to deal with the fact that she asked for an implied obligation to 5(22) of the lease. Judge Patten stated before the many journalists in attendance who had taken an interest in the case, with regards to a landlord’s duties to repair, “It is in the Judgment’. It is the Applicant’s view that there is no reference in the Judgment to her an implied obligation to 5(22) of the lease. Therefore the case as it is said to have been pleaded will now affect many tenants and leaseholders throughout the UK. Court of Appeal, dismissing Appeal, (P321) Publicity on the case (P322-329)

Appeal to the Supreme Court with citations, including reference to Article 1 of Convention on Human Rights, (protection of property). Issue of public interest (insurance), failure to supply transcripts of Court of Appeal hearing, failure to respond substantively to amended grounds of appeal and a request that the Smith and Williamson, forensic report commissioned by both parties be referred to in the assessment of damages. Certificate of Service, 21 June 2014. (P330-339) Human Rights Act (P336)

Email from the other side’s solicitors supporting the Applicant’s assertion of having asked for 5(22) of the lease as an implied covenant and not a repairing covenant. (P340-344)

Application to European Court of Human Rights within the 6 months of last Judgment deadline. Application no. 75700/13, Nov 2013.

Supreme Court Order of refusal to appeal based on ‘no application in law’. This does not address the complaint of ‘misrepresentation of facts of pleading’ that are now public and inaccurate, or the application, in any way at all. The Supreme Court held that there was no application in law. This does not address the complaint. The complaint was that Ms Flores was misrepresented in fact in Judgment. 5 February 2014. Order of Supreme Court. (P345)

Letter of inadmissibility from ECHR (including typographical error). April 3 2014. The deadline for the additional information requested by the Court in its letter of 10 February 2014 was 4 April. Email 10 Feb 2014 (P346)

Additional documentation was posted and faxed on 3 April. (P347-357)

The Court may not have had an opportunity to consider the additional information/documents comprising Supplementary Table of Statement of Facts and medical evidence faxed before the date given (4 April), with the intention of adhering to the application format, and the application may have been considered inadmissible on that basis at the end of March without the Court having sight of the additional information requested by 4 April 2014, and without further dialogue with the Registrar as to other documents that may be still required, and prior to the deadline for an ECHR application of 3 August.

The Applicant apologises if there has been any misunderstanding. Letter of inadmissibility from ECHR. April 3 2014. (P358)

The applicant emails a Human Rights specialist lawyer, taking advice on exhaustion of domestic remedies and reapplication to ECHR, before the deadline, and within six months of the last domestic judgment. With this advice she emails the Supreme Court.

Email correspondence with the UK’s Supreme Court confirming that all domestic remedies are exhausted. (P359-361)

Reapplication to ECHR, after taking free legal advice, with new and substantial grounds, and revised, additional and extended relevant supporting legal arguments and material, so as to meet criteria of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. The application is submitted within six months of the last domestic Judgment of the UK Supreme Court.

Previously, domestic remedies may not yet have been exhausted. The last Judgment, and email confirmation from the Supreme Court stating that all domestic remedies are exhausted, had not been received by the Applicant, although it had been applied for. Additionally, page numbering in the first application was inadequate with regard to ease of referencing evidence and legal arguments. The Applicant is currently in receipt of social security benefit in the UK. She draws the Court’s attention to reduced financial circumstances due to the repossession of her business premises. She has been unable to pay for legal advice to assist with her applications. She has incurred significant costs in producing and posting the application and supporting documentation. The Applicant has taken advice, at no charge, from a barrister, and further to this advice is submitting an application with new and broader legal arguments to support the article breaches complained of, and additionally, new and relevant evidence to support these, and a substantively enhanced arguments. She regards this application as of wider importance, beyond its relevance to her personally, due to the public interest ramifications for leaseholders of business premises in particular, and more broadly, leaseholders of commercial and residential property, with regard to their security, legal status, insurance and their protection against risk, and their right to peacefully enjoy their possessions.

Emails to the Civil Appeals Office chasing transcripts of the appeal hearing. Proof of Identification and proof of £52 a week income since 2008, sent by registered posted. (P362-378)

The transcripts can be forwarded to the European Court of Human Rights if and when they are received from the Civil Appeals Office. In the meanwhile this application has new grounds of email evidence that will suffice, from the solicitors of the landlord that Ms Flores asked as stated for an Implied Covenant for the landlord not to breach the terms of the insurance, in contract, clause 5(22).

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

 F. Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and relevant arguments

Article Invoked and Explanation

Article 1 Protection of Property

(1) The granting of the first Injunctions established proof of rent payment at the time of re-entry of both the Applicant’s premises. At the return date at the High Court 14 Nov 2008 where the injunctions remained, and at the second Permission to Appeal hearing, this finding of fact was established yet it has in two judgments been allowed to be misrepresented that rent payment was owed at the time of trespass/forfeiture, this was at the County Court and at the Court of Appeal Judgment. This error breached the Applicant’s right to quiet enjoyment of her premises as the error has been used to take both premises off her unlawfully.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial

(2) The lead up to the trial breached the Applicant’s right to a fair trial within a reasonable time as HHJ Cowell, the trial Judge, only responded to the landlord’s solicitors for disclosure. There was an inequality of arms because the insurers backed the landlord’s defence so provided no legal cover for the Appellant’s even though they held the same insurance contract. There was no order that fees should be capped. The Applicant’s Particulars of Claim were rejected and then accepted, wasting the Applicant’s time and money making up new Particulars of Claim and having two further case management hearings for this in court. The Judge allowed more expense by entertaining a section 25 Notice when it was clear that the issue could only be decided once the trial was concluded and in turn this breached the terms of the Injunction for quiet enjoyment. The time for the lead up to the trial was just under two years when it was ordered by the High Court to be done “at speed”.  More details of other issues relating to breaches of Articles 1 & 6 of the Convention of Human Rights and the ways in which the Convention was violated can be seen in the application Notice for Permission to Appeal, filed 13 Oct 2010.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial

(3) It was ordered by HHJ Cowell that both parties pay £8,000 each for a single joint expert in forensic accounting. The report was never used during the trial to establish losses and then continued to be ignored despite requests for it to be used in an N244 application made by the applicant to the Court of Appeal. The report establishes that losses were not overstated or exaggerated and that the appellants had suffered financial losses that had been proved in the report as fact. The ordering of this report and then the failure to use the report made the figures of loss seem unrealistic in the Court of Appeal which was not a fair representation of the true financial losses caused from the disrepair of the landlord’s premises that affected the Applicant’s premises.

Article 6 Right to a Fair & Article

1 Protection of Property

(4) The County Court Judgment breached Articles 1, Article 1 Protection of Property & Article 6, Right to a Fair Trial of the Convention of Human Rights. How the convention was violated can be seen in full, in the Applicant’s Notice for Permission to Appeal, filed 13 Oct 2010 in response to the County Court Judgment.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial

(5) The Right to a Fair Trial was breached since the Applicant, acting as litigant in person, was entitled to have her notes of Judgment approved, and also to have the notes of Judgment of the other side’s solicitors. Both were denied to her.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial

(6) The Judge admits he had not read the Claimants Submissions on Liability. He said he would read the Submission and do a second Judgment. The Applicant believes the Convention has been breached because the trial was already unfairly heard, as the Applicant was not allowed to put her case orally, whereas the landlord had four days

to put their case, with the Applicant who was representing herself, held in the witness box. This was already mismanagement of the trial time for the Applicant to plead her case. Therefore after nearly two years of waiting for the trial the Applicant’s case was never heard in Court. When the Applicant made this point in the County Court at the end of the 10 days trial, the Judge asked her to put her case in an email. The Judge now has admitted he never read her case as well not hearing her case at trial. How can a Judgment then be made? Continued Pages

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(7) Right to a Fair Trial, though the Judge had given commercial rents based on the Single Joint Expert advice and comparable rents next door. In the costs, however, he doubled the rent.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial             

(8) The costs hearing went ahead despite the Judge admitting he had never heard the Applicant’s case or read it. The costs hearing should never have been allowed to go ahead as liability had not been established.

Article 1 Protection of Property -            

(9) The Convention of right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and not to be deprived of his possessions has been breached. The costs hearing was illegal and without due process, and so was the possession of both shops at the costs hearing and all orders made there. This deprived the Applicant of her possessions, and any means which to make a living, and allowed a costs order that has daily interest to date to accumulate. This was before the second Judgement and, thereafter, before the Permission to Appeal application and Appeal process had been exhausted lawfully. A costs order is only at the end of a trial and is therefore financially inaccurate to date and should be subject to reassessment if any costs eventually apply at all.

Article 6 The Right to a Fair Trial            

(10) The Right to a Fair Trial was breached because the Judge admitted he had not read the Applicant’s submissions on liability, so he produced another Judgment to cover this error. The Applicant believes he did this to cover himself and did not significantly change the Judgment to take into account the Applicant’s submissions on liability.

Article 6 The Right to a Fair Trial - Article 1, Protection of Property           

(11) & (12) Right to Fair Trial & Protection of Property. The Applicant believes the indemnity costs in the supplemental Judgment for rent on both shops was unreasonable, as the rent was more than doubled without explanation, and without reference to any previous judgment on assessment of the rent that had just happened. There was no reason to establish indemnity costs in the case. The applicant believes that a stay not being allowed breached her human right’s, the applicant believes that relief from (or equal to) forfeiture was already established as she had at the head of all proceedings Nov 2008 provided proof of rent payment and the change made here in this judgment, that the judge could not judge this as it was, as he said out of his jurisdiction was just an excuse to take both shops unlawfully at this stage from the claimants, by bending the rules of section 139 of the County Court Act sub-section (2) (as seen in Ms Flores notes) to allow this illegality to take place. The judge stating that the claimants perused this case instead of trading was a wrong accusation, as he did not address the fact that at the time of trial and before that, at both shops there was still damage that still had not been repaired using insurance monies. The judge was wrong to state that offers to mediate were serious offers when they were only improper inducement. The first one to double the rent if we did not repair the floor costing £5,000 and the other offering us £25,000 the day before the 10 days trial, when we had spent £55,000 in legal costs to date so offering us £25,000 the day before a 10 days trial that would cost the landlord and their insured £100,000 in legal costs, should be seen for what it was, a tactic and a way to pay less than the 10 days trial itself. It was also a waste of our time and a very frustrating upsetting process on the day before trial.

Article 1, Protection of Property & Article 6, the Right to a Fair Trial           

(13) & (14) The Applicant’s believe that, Protection of Property & the Right to a Fair Trial, of the Convention of Human Rights, and the ways in which the Convention was violated, can be evidenced in full in the application Notice for Permission to Appeal, filed 13 Oct 2010 specifically pages 127-130.

Article 1, Protection of Property, and Article 6, Right to a Fair Trial           

(15) & (16) Protection of Property and Right to a Fair Trial, were breached as the Applicant was, during the period while awaiting the transcripts of the hearing, that were necessary in order to prepare her arguments for further hearing, put out of her fully refurbished premises, and whilst the premises were let to other tenants, rent free, and, as a result, the premises suffered further internal wear and tear, and damage. The delay was unreasonable, as three weeks is the normal time to proceed to Permission to Appeal. Liberty, the human rights organization, advised that it had not heard of the stipulation of having to obtain transcripts before Permission to Appeal. The Applicant believes this was another delay tactic to tire out the Applicant, to dispose of the case and to keep the Applicant out of their properties for as long as possible so any insurance claim could also be disposed of.

The Right to a Fair Trial, was breached when the Civil Appeals Office asked for the notes of the landlord’s legal team on the Judgment of HHJ Cowell, to be sent to the courts, after nearly two years of waiting for the transcripts. These unapproved notes were to be used to make the Judgment for Permission to Appeal.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(17) Right to a Fair Trial was breached when the Judicial Assistant for the Master of the Rolls writes, within a report, that Permission to Appeal should be denied, despite stating there was a breach of lease, negligence and breach of statutory duty. This report was based on a previous draft had been made a year earlier in Sept 2011 by the Judicial Assistant to the Master of the Rolls, when the Master of the Rolls was the brother in law of the chairperson of the landlord at the time; Julia Neuberger, Chairperson of Community Housing Association until April 2012, and David Neuberger Master of the Rolls until Sept 2012. The Applicant believes that the Right to a Fair Trial was breached, as there was a conflict of interest, as a family member of the Defendant could be seen to have judicial influence, especially as the report was coming from the Master of the Rolls’ Judicial Assistant.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(18) Right to a Fair Trial was breached as the Permission to Appeal was refused without due process, in haste, and without the ordered transcripts.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(19) The Right to a Fair Trial, was breached when the Applicant was advised to take up pro-bono help, yet the QC to help them it seems had already been decided. This is not seen as fair, or independent, by the Applicant and delayed the case as the Applicant was required to wait another seven months for pro-bono advice, when her case was already, in her opinion, effectively pleaded at the first oral hearing.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(20) The Right to a Fair Trial. The appellant after receiving the illusive transcripts and compared this with the solicitor’s notes and saw that the solicitors notes were totally inaccurate. This proves that the refusal of Permission to Appeal decision was fundamentally flawed.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(21) The Right to a Fair Trial – The Order over a Stay was confusing and so this was later changed.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(22) Right to a Fair Trial – The Applicant applied for Amended Grounds based on findings of fact. If a finding of fact is established it would be very difficult to argue that it should not be in the Grounds as there is nothing to prove. However the Applicant’s N244 application was not dealt with and, therefore, this, in real terms, cut out the issue of breach of building regulations, completely from of the case unfairly.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(23) The Right to a Fair Trial – This article gives the Applicant the right to conduct her own case as a litigant in person. That is to say for all her issues in the particulars of claim, to be tried and for her to have legal judgment on them all. The Applicant was juggled between pro-bono legal advisors whose advice in part was compromising perhaps to play a tactical game in law and was certainly inaccurate in part referring to section 11 of the housing act which is about residential settings. All this was on the order of the Judge, which she felt she had to take in order to continue to be helpful to the courts. As a result she almost lost significant parts of her case in the process. The Applicant was then under pressure because of significantly late advice from junior pro-bono counsel and was ten forced to write her own Skeleton Argument for the Court of Appeal with very little time left before the Appeal to re-establish her case to the one it had been all along. The Applicant believes these tactics were used to cut her case down in size to just a few issues and that this was unlawful. She believes that her case has been allowed to be manipulated by the courts to avoid all the issues such as the breaching of Part F building regulations by the landlord, this ensure all premises built after 1999 have ventilation/air bricks as a minimum requirement for a residential social landlord who receives public money. The applicant worked tirelessly to ensure this and other issues were put back in the claim and were still within the grounds for which permission to appeal was given.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(24) Right to a Fair Trial – The N244 application requesting the inclusion of the report of the forensic accountant, when referring to costs, was ignored. This meant an unfair reflection at the Court of Appeal was made with regards to keeping the indemnity costs ordered. The Court stated the claim was exaggerated when the joint experts forensic accountants report costing the applicant and the defendant  £8,000 each on the order of HHJ Cowell at the County Court proves it was not.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(25) Right to a Fair Trial – During the Applicant’s appearance in the Court of Appeal, one of the judges immediately tried to change the way in which proceedings went. He suggested that the Defendant start the proceedings and that the Applicant reply. The Applicant refused as she had brought the case and knew she was the person who should start, and had two days in which it was to be heard, for which she had thoroughly prepared, including learning the 52 laws being used, that had been given to her by the other side’s solicitors at very short notice. The next day the defendant then spoke for a few hours, continuously, reading just a few laws that we all knew, and making very few legal points or interjections, and immediately after one of the judges said the applicant would have a chance to reply. The applicant then asked how long she had to finish presenting her case, and the Judge replied they would stop at 12 noon, so this meant the Applicant had 20 minutes to come back with all the legal arguments. I had to choose one text I had written, instead of giving a full argument, and I was very upset. I knew this was unfair, and as a result I was crying as I read as fast as I could, to get as much legal points in as possible and at least to my mind onto courts official transcript. This breached my human rights to have my legal case heard fairly. Then without warning or a clerk saying all rise, the three judges got up and walked out. I said I had not finished. They ignored me and carried on walking out. This was unfair and cut short my legal argument, and cut short the two days allocation for the hearing, breaching my right to a fair trial, after I had waited for two years and eight months to get to an Appeal hearing. I was then escorted by security out a side back entrance of the court.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(26) Right to a Fair Trial – I believe my rights were breached under the Convention because the Judgment is sent for correction to the litigant in person before judgment is handed down and my corrections were ignored. I was misrepresented in Judgment, which wrongly stated I had asked for an implied repairing covenant, when I had in fact asked for an implied obligation that the landlord could not breach the insurance under clause 5(22) of the lease.

Article 1 Protection of property           

(27) Right to Protection of Property. The incorrect Judgment, failing to take corrections into account, ensured that I could never have peaceful possession of my property, and allowed a costs order against me unfairly.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(28) Right to a Fair Trial – The Applicant believes that her legal argument was ignored in full in the Judgment, which breaches her right to a fair trial.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(29) Right to a Fair Trial – The Applicant believes her right to have her case accurately represented was obscured by the Judge not considering any corrections to the Judgment as laid out in the N244 application. The Judge had a duty, by law, to consider the N244 application and give lawful reasons as to why the application was refused, as that is the purpose of a formal application. The stay on Judgment was necessary and the transcripts were necessary to prove the Applicant’s corrections.

Article 1 Protection of property           

(30) Protection of property. Ignoring the attempt to be heard by the Applicant, in the proper consideration of the N244 application, meant the handing down of this inaccurate judgment had a catastrophic effect on the Applicants right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, and equity, potentially for her lifetime, but certainly for her immediate future.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(31) Right to a Fair Trial – The Applicant not only suffered misrepresentation in the Judgment, but her case is now misrepresented in the written reports by law firms, due to its significance in relation to the rights of leaseholders and tenants more widely. Her reputation, as a litigant in person, could have an effect on other legal situations she may find herself in. Most recently the Secretary of State announced a Public Inquiry and it is almost certain the Applicant will be called to give evidence. Her reputation and credibility must not be allowed to be misrepresented, or compromised, not only in relation to the ramifications for herself, but also in terms of the implications her case has for the rights of tenants, leaseholders and victims who rely on landlords insuring their premises and residences.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(32) Right to a Fair Trial – I was not given a fair trial as a response to my application to the Supreme Court was delayed for eight months.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial            

(33) Right to a Fair Trial – The Supreme Court failed to deal with the issue in the application of misrepresentation, but said I had no point in law instead. I had not made a point in law; I had appealed not to be misrepresented at the Court of Appeal. This breached my Right to a Fair Trial and exhausted any UK remedy. Since the reply was late I then had to pre-empt an application to ECHR within the six months of the last Judgment, as I could not rely on ever getting a reply from the Supreme Court.

 ...............................................................................................................................................................

G. For each complaint, please confirm that you have used the available effective remedies in the country concerned, including appeals, and also indicate the date when the final decision at domestic level was delivered and received, to show that you have complied with the six-month time-limit. 

Article 1 Protection of Property

Violation (1.)

(1.) Action in Domestic Courts – Proof of payment was handed to Judge Wilkie at the Queen Bench Court 37, for an immediate injunction for the protection of property from the landlord and their bailiff. Keys for the changed locked were handed back to Ms Flores forthwith or the landlord would be imprisoned.

At the return hearing, with the landlords counsel present, upon proof of payment, Judge Christopher Clarke ruled to continue the two injunctions, until trial at the County Court or further notice.

Jan Luba QC established that there was no rent owing, at the time of re-entry, in his appearance at the Oral hearing.

Ms Flores offered the receipt of proof of payment to the Court of Appeal, who said they did not need to see it.

Remedies Attempted – Proof of payment given to the landlord at their offices before the second re-entry. Upon second break in, injunctions sought at High Court. Proof of payment was offered to the courts in all proceedings.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 4 Nov 2008 at High Court, same day decision. 14 Nov 2008 at High Court, same day decision. 10 May 2012 at Oral Hearing, High Court, same day decision. 2 and 3 May 2013 at Court of Appeal, informed of decision in draft order17 May & decision handed down in Judgment 24 May 2013.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial

Violation (2.)

(2) Action in Domestic Courts – Complained about the trial in the Application Notice for Permission to Appeal filed 13 Oct 2010.

Remedies Attempted – The applicant was patient throughout and tried to adhere to the Courts requests and orders. The applicant produced the Particulars of Claim on time, then paid for extra particulars of claim, paid for the joint forensic accountants report, produced disclosure on time, paid for the preparation of the trial always advocating that she should be legally covered by the joint insurance, applied to the courts for disclosure but was ignored, paid for legal help to represent her case at the Section 25 hearing, paid for mediation the day before the trial, represented herself in the County Court and tried to be heard that she was insured for disrepair at all times.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – Lead up to the trial was from 14 Nov 2008 to 13 July 2010. 9 Sept 2010 County Court Judgment, same day decision. 20 Sept 2010 Costs order and supplementary Judgment, same day decision taken without a Judgment. The second and final Judgment 22 Sept 2010. Oct 13 2010 filed Application Notice for permission to Appeal that trial was unfair. Decision taken at Oral hearing 4 Dec 2012, order same day.

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial

Violation (3)

(3) Action in Domestic Courts – N244 Application presented to Court of Appeal asking for the report to be used.

Remedies Attempted – Request on N244 application to Court of Appeal to use the report.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 17 May 2013 draft order of Court of Appeal decision to dismiss N244 application. Informed on same day.

Articles 1, Protection of Property

Article 6, Right to a Fair Trial

Violation (4)

(4) Action in Domestic Courts – Complained about the trial and how a single law was used in Judgment for all complaints of disrepair in the Application Notice for Permission to Appeal filed 13 Oct 2010.

Continued on Page 1-7

Violation (4)            

(4) continued -

Remedies Attempted – The applicant represented herself in the County Court and tried to be heard that she was covered for disrepair at all times by insurance held jointly with the landlord. That disrepair was outside of her premises and therefore out of her control. The laws used in Judgment all stem from leaks inside the premises, they do not cover breach of contract and common law duty, they avoid taking into account the time taken to repair after notice of disrepair was given, they avoid the cessor of rent clause during the time of disrepair, that the premises had to be fully out of action and not partly as the clause states and they treat the landlord as a neighbouring occupier to avail any liability, when liability was covered from the point of damage and at all times by insurance cover of the development of the residential flats above under property owners liability (POL) cover enshrined within the joint insurance policy and in the lease contract (as seen in insurance documents Additional bundle B, available throughout the trial and handed up to the Court of Appeal).

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 9 Sept 2010 County Court Judgment, same day decision. 20 Sept 2010 Costs order and supplementary Judgment, same day decision taken without a Judgment. The second and final Judgment 22 Sept 2010. Oct 13 2010 filed Application Notice for permission to Appeal that trial was unfair. Decision taken at Oral hearing 4 Dec 2012, order same day.

Violation (5)

(5) Action in Domestic Courts – 9 Sept 2010 Judgment not supplied in writing. 20 Sept 2010 Judgment Not supplied in writing. 22 Sept 2010 Judgment not supplied in writing.

Remedies Attempted – The applicant emails County Court requesting to have her notes approved on the 13 Sept 2010. The applicant emails a request to obtain notes from the defendant. The email to the defendant’s counsel after the first judgment on liability was made on 9/9/10 was left unanswered and was later made obsolete by the 22/09/10 order relating to conditions of the application for transcripts to be obtained. As seen in section 8 of the Application for permission to Appeal submitted on the 13 Oct 2010.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – No reply from the court or the defendant’s counsel.

Violation (6)            

(6) Action in Domestic Courts – On the day of the costs hearing where the judge makes a decision to take all the property the claimant owns off her, the Judge admits he has not read the claimants submissions on liability before his Judgment on 9 Sept 2010. He then proceeds with the cost hearing before any judgment on liability.

Remedies Attempted – On 17 Sept 2010 the applicant submits an N244 application with the claimants submissions on liability and states there is nothing in Judgment to reflect the claimants case. She says she believes the Judge has not read her case. She asks for a stay on the costs hearing due on 20 Sept 2010.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 20 Sept 2010 decision on same day to do a second judgment. Cost hearing goes ahead on the 20 Sept 2010.

Violation (7)            

(7) Action in Domestic Courts – Assessment of rent 20 Sept 2010.

Remedies Attempted – Applicant made representation at the assessment of rent hearing so that a reasonable rise in future rent was established based on variables of neighbouring rents and the joint expert forensic accountant witness being examined in the courts by the applicant.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 20 Sept 2010 County Court Order.

Violation (8)           

(8) Action in Domestic Courts – The Costs hearing went ahead despite liability not being established.

Remedies Attempted – The applicants applied for a stay on the costs hearing in the N244 application.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 17 Sept 2010 N244 application. Oral decision to ignore request for stay on costs hearing made on 20 Sept 2010.

Violation (9)           

(9) Action in Domestic Courts – Costs hearing

Remedies Attempted – N244 Application

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – On the same date as the costs hearing 20 Sept 2010.

Violation (10)

(10) Action in Domestic Courts – Supplemental Judgment of indemnity Costs.

Remedies Attempted – Tried to stop the costs order in the N244 application.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 20 Sept 2010 decision was made and the claimants heard this on the same day in court.

Violation (11) & (12)           

(11) & (12) Action in Domestic Courts – Illegal costs hearing where section 139 of the County Court Act sub-section (2) was misused as well as an indemnity cost order established with daily interest.

Remedies Attempted – The claimants took substantial notes of the costs hearing to prove that it was not only illegal but it was also unfair in forfeiture of both shops when no rent was owing, misusing 139 of the County Court Act sub-section (2). Allowing indemnity costs without grounds and not recognising that at both shops disrepair was continuing rendering both shops illegal and unusable to trade from. Ms Flores asked for an order on the day that both shops be fixed with insurance monies to honour the order for peaceful enjoyment as set out in the injunctions.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – The costs hearing decision had an immediate effect on the 20 Sept 2010 where both premises were taken off the claimants forthwith. The cost order was on the same day. We were at the hearing and so were informed on the same day. A very brief supplementary judgment was further given on the 22 Sept 2010 for the day of the 20 Sept 10 costs hearing proceedings.

Violation (13) & (14)           

(13) & (14) Action in Domestic Courts – County Court Judgments

Remedies Attempted – Application Notice for Permission to Appeal filed on 13 Oct 2010

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 4 Dec 2012 Permission to Appeal Oral hearing. Permission granted. Present at hearing and informed on the day.

Violation (15) & (16)           

(15) & (16) Action in Domestic Courts – HHJ Cowell at the County Court stipulated that transcripts of his Judgment were necessary for the application for permission to appeal to go ahead.

Remedies Attempted – The claimants chasing the transcripts of Judgment with the Civil Appeals Office for two years by email correspondence.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 12 Nov 2010 – 10 Sept 2012 correspondence with the Civil Appeals Office to request transcripts of Judgment.

Action in Domestic Courts – Civil Appeals Office request transcripts of the defendant’s legal teams notes to make a decision on permission to appeal.

Remedies Attempted – Claimant objected by email to the Civil Appeals Office, to unapproved notes being used. Claimant compared solicitor’s notes to her own notes. Claimant then tried to put together a legal argument based on her first analysis of the laws involved in the judgment. The claimant corresponded at all times with the Civil Appeals Office.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – Decision taken on the 24 February to reject permission to Appeal. Sent immediately in the post to the claimant.

Violation (17)            

(17) Action in Domestic Courts – The Judicial Assistant to the Master of the Rolls writes a Bench memo recommending Permission to Appeal be denied.

Remedies Attempted – After obtaining this information and a copy of the memo, the claimant made the Court of Appeal aware of the memo and conflict of interest and stated this was an unfair trial within her skeleton argument to the Court of Appeal. She later did the same with the Supreme Court.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – The Bench Memo was written on 25 Jan 2012. The Skeleton Argument was written and submitted in the N244 application on the 21 March 2013 to the Court of Appeal. It was further submitted to the Supreme Court on the 21 June 2013. Civil Appeals Office - Lord Justice Jacob made a decision to refuse Permission to Appeal on the 24 Feb 2012

Violation (18)           

(18) Action in Domestic Courts – Permission to Appeal Refused

Remedies Attempted – Claimant objected by email to the Civil Appeals Office, to unapproved notes being used. Claimant compared solicitor’s notes to her own notes. Claimant then tried to put together a legal argument based on her first analysis of the laws involved in the judgment. Claimant continuously asked for the official transcripts of Judgment.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – Decision taken on 24 Feb 2012 and then sent to the claimant immediately by post.

Violation (19)           

(19) Action in Domestic Courts – 10 May Oral hearing. Correspondence between Laura Angus and Melanie Vasilescu regarding a mediation scheme. Note to LJ Ward from Laura Angus Lawyer Group B stating that Derek Wood on recommendation from the Judge should be contacted.

Remedies Attempted – Legal case pleaded effectively by the claimant was not judged. A second oral hearing with legal help was allowed. Information obtained to prove the actions of the Civil Appeals Office. Claimant obtained her own chambers of lawyers and asked them to contact the pro-bono unit so that her case could have independent representation and not be manipulated.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 10 May 2012 Oral hearing. Email correspondence of Civil Appeals Office 11 May 20102 and 16 Aug 2012. Case Progression Chronology, 22 October 2012, written at Civil Appeals Office with two pages of handwritten notes.

Violation (20)

(20) Action in Domestic Courts – Civil Appeals Office sends the second Judgment to the claimant.

Remedies Attempted – Claimant compares the real transcript of Judgment to the solicitor’s notes and sends this to the Civil Appeals Office to state that the decision to refuse permission to appeal based on the solicitors notes was fundamentally flawed.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 19 June 2012 second Judgment received from Civil Appeals Office. 17 July 2012 claimant sends email to the Civil Appeals Office.

Violation (21)           

(21) Action in Domestic Courts – Order given at Oral hearing

Remedies Attempted – Claimant asked her lawyer about the stay as she believes she has both shops back. Lawyer says there was some mistake in the order.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – Order changed as set out on 4 Dec 2012 Order and then sent by post to the claimant.

Violation (22)

(22) Action in Domestic Courts – The Applicant orally asks LJ Ward at the hearing 4 Dec 2013, whether she can further amend the Amended Grounds of Appeal, further to the late advice given by pro-bono Junior Counsel where she may widen the scope of the grounds. LJ Ward agrees.

Remedies Attempted – N244 Application to amend the grounds of appeal 2a, 2b, 2c, based on statement of fact, with amended grounds of appeal, with factual evidence based on these findings of fact.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions - Submitted 21 March 2013, stamped 29 April 2013. Date of decision to refuse findings of fact in the N244 application were sent to the claimant on 17 May 2013.

Violation (23)           

(23) Action in Domestic Courts – Order 10 May 2012 to get pro-bono help.

Remedies Attempted – I Parted with pro-bono just in time to save my own case. Wrote my own Skeleton Argument with all the original issues back in place, still using the grounds that were given to appeal. I kept the fact that I would use clause 5(22) as the implied obligation under the laws quoted in my skeleton argument on implied obligations until the trial at the Court of Appeal, where I would throw this contractual technical curve ball 5(22) orally and since it was part of the grounds there was nothing they could say to me for asking for that. It fact 5(22) would complete my whole case and I knew it before I went to the Court of Appeal to state the laws that backed 5(22) up and also handed the Court of Appeal the insurance documents, an integral part of the lease contract (insurance documents handed to the Court of Appeal 3 copies for 3 Judges as seen in Additional bundle B) that backed it up in the lease contract too! So for all the manipulation so far I was going to be in a position to be judged finally on the real issues in contract whether anyone wanted me there in the court or not. I had a right to represent myself as I knew the case better than them all and I cared passionately about it, as my whole life that depended on it. I, in human rights terms should as a litigant in person have a right not to be manipulated and to be able to plead my case and be judged fairly on the merits of the case with the application of the law which I had at my disposal and was written up clearly in my skeleton argument and stated in the Court of Appeal.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 17 May draft Judgment. No reference to 5(22) in the Judgment handed down 24 May 2013 High Court, The Strand.

Violation (24)           

(24) Action in Domestic Courts – N244 form was ignored at the Court of Appeal even though it was submitted on the 21 March 2013 and had plenty of time to be considered.

Remedies Attempted – N244 Application to use the accountants report. Another N244 application made on the 23 May to stay the Judgment pending corrections and also to use the report as applied for.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – N244 application submitted 21 May 2012. N244 Application 23 May 2013. 17 May draft Judgment. Decision made to reject the N244 application only in the draft judgment. The Judgment was then handed down 24 May 2013 High Court.

Violation (25)           

(25) Action in Domestic Courts – Court of Appeal hearing

Remedies Attempted – The three judges cut short the two days trial at the Court of Appeal during my legal argument. When draft judgment was then sent to me I attempted to help the judges by coherently replying to all of the judgment with all the legal arguments I had pleaded in the Skeleton Argument and at the Court of Appeal, in the corrections to the draft, since they had walked out mid my pleadings. Since the arguments were well known and fresh in my mind, I spotted very quickly that clause 5(22) was not mentioned and replied immediately by email pointing this out, as this small point was the making of the case and essential to be in the judgment as pleaded. I then replied to the draft Judgment in meticulously and in full within 24 hours to be helpful to the courts.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – Draft judgment 17 May 2013 and my reply 19 Feb 2013. Judgment handed down with no changes on 24 May 2013.

Violation (26)           

(26) Action in Domestic Courts – Court of Appeal I pleaded that I wanted an implied obligation to clause 5(22) of the lease that the landlord does not breach the terms of the insurance as I cannot either in this clause. Not withstanding that once the landlord has committed an act of omission effectively they breach clause 7(2) to keep the demised premises insured so have broken the lease contract anyway.

Remedies Attempted – I emailed the Court of Appeal to state the fact that I pleaded this and it is not reflected in judgment. I never asked for an implied repairing covenant as the judgment stated I did.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 17 May 2013 draft judgment sent. 17 May 2013 email from claimant sent back to Court of Appeal. 19 May 2013 corrections in the judgment sent by the claimant to Court of Appeal.

Violation (27)           

(27) Action in Domestic Courts – Court of Appeal and Civil Appeals Office.

Remedies Attempted – An N244 application was sent with full corrections to the judgment asking for a stay on judgment until the corrections to the draft are looked at and taken into consideration. Most importantly that one thing was said to have been pleaded was incorrect and that the real pleading was taken out of judgment so misrepresented the case in full. This meant I could not have my bigger shop property back after many years and it has remained empty ever since as I see it every day as it is across the road from my home although the smaller shop is now let, I would still like to have them both back as is my human right and for the insurance to pay for the property owners liability and repairs, as is covered under clause 7(2). The corrections to the Judgment were sent by email and cover many issues that were incorrect to make the judgment completely misrepresented in full and therefore unfair in conclusion and remedy.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 17 May 2012 draft judgment, my corrections in email of 19 May 2013 found on pages 301-316 of bundle.

Violation (28)           

(28) Action in Domestic Courts – Court of Appeal. The litigant in person pleads The principle of Ryland and Fletcher of ‘absolute liability’ because she is insured from the ‘point of damage’ and ‘at all times’.

Remedies Attempted – The claimant emailed the Court of Appeals Office in response to the draft Judgment where it was said that the principles of Ryland v Fletcher were to have not been pleaded by the Applicant. The Applicant had in fact pleaded the principles of Ryland and Fletcher, BT v Sun Life, Lord Cross of Chelsea at the House of Lords and the grounds of Barrett v Lounova and other citations in the Court of Appeal and in her Skeleton Argument.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions - Draft judgment 17 May 2013 and my reply 19 Feb 2013. Judgment handed down with no changes on 24 May 2013.

Violation (29)           

(29) Action in Domestic Courts – Civil Appeals Office

Remedies Attempted – N244 Application submitted on 23 May 2013 for a stay on judgment was handed in at the High Court by the claimant. This had all the reasons why the judgment was inaccurate from the human rights perspective because it misrepresented her in full. This is not an issue of law this is an issue to have a fair trial.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 23 May 2013 order sent 24 May 2013 to refuse the N244 application

Violation (30)           

(30) Action in Domestic Courts – The Judge rejected the N244 application whilst in another court case. He did not consider the N244 application nor give any reasons for the rejection of the points.

Remedies Attempted – Attended the Court to submit an N244 application and ask for a stay in the inaccurate and misrepresented judgment.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 23 May 2013

Violation (31)           

(31) Action in Domestic Courts – Application to the Supreme Court.

Remedies Attempted – The applicant applied to the Supreme Court and was eventually told that there was no application in law. This was not what she had asked for; she had said that she had been misrepresented in her pleadings of the case in the Judgment. Therefore the reply some 8 months late made no sense to her application. As she was not arguing or had applied to argue a point of law. She had applied not to be widely misrepresented as this had ramifications for her and for many other cases, so the case had a very public interest, as publicity on the case in the bundle at 322-329 will show.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – Applied to the Supreme Court on 21 June and followed the CPR rules, expected the judgment to come back within the said 28 days of the Civil Procedure Rules rule’s but judgment arrived on the 5 Feb 2014 and was dated the 3 Feb 2014.

Violation (32)           

(32) Action in Domestic Courts – Supreme Court

Remedies Attempted – I applied on the 21st June to the Supreme Court to not be misrepresented. In the meanwhile this delay nearly caused me to miss the deadline to apply to the ECHR. So I waited until it was nearly six months from the last domestic judgment and made an application just to be on time in case the Supreme Court never replied because then I would be out of time for ECHR.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 5 Feb some 8 months later I got a reply.

Violation (33)           

(33) Action in Domestic Courts – No reply from Supreme Court despite timely application.

Remedies Attempted – I waited patiently with the application about being misrepresented as I had had this kind of thing before with the courts so I did not want to antagonise them. In the past I had chased them and it made no difference. I then applied to the ECHR within time stating this lack of reply as another breach of my human rights. The right to a fair hearing and to have my case heard in good time. My experience to date had not followed this.

Dates of Decisions and Dates Informed of Decisions – 3 Feb 2013.

 I. List of accompanying documents
You should enclose full and legible copies of all documents.
No documents will be returned to you. It is thus in your interests to submit copies, not originals.
You MUST:
- arrange the documents in order by date and by procedure;
- number the pages consecutively;
- NOT staple, bind or tape the documents.

In the box below, please list the documents in chronological order with a concise description.

 1. Leaseholder’s notice of reports to landlord regarding disrepair - Agreed and disagreed with landlord at the County Court. (P1-9)

2. Communication between landlord and insurance broker, and between broker and insurers/underwriters. (P.10-20)

3. Report to UK Underwriting on property owners’ liability. (P21-26)

4. Communication re landlord’s acknowledgement of Applicant’s claim. (P27)

5. Proof of Payment to landlord, 31st Oct 2008. (P28)

6. Application for an injunction to prevent lease forfeiture (providing proof of rent payment). November 2008. (P28)

7. Interim injunction against landlord granted, permitting Applicant to remain at her premises. 4 November 2008. (P29-32)

8. Order of the High Court for injunctions to remain and for the case to proceed to County Court at speed. (P33-40)

9. Submission of Particulars of Claim, Schedule of Loss filed with the Central London County Court, dated 4 December 2008. (P41-55)

10. Smith and Williamson forensic report, produced by the single, joint expert, commissioned by both parties, Doug Hall, Head of Forensic Services (P56-60)

11. Judgment, Central London County Court, 9 September 2010. Judgment of His Honour Judge Cowell. (P61-85)

12. Email to Central London County Court for approval of Applicant’s Notes of Judgment, 13 September 2010 (P86)

13. Admission by His Honour Judge Cowell that he did not read the Claimant’s Submissions on Liability (N244 application). (P110)

14. Cost hearing, Central London County Court, 20 September 2010, His Honour Judge Cowell. Applicant’s notes. (No transcript has been received.) (P92-108)

15. Second Judgment, Central London County Court. 22 September 2010. His Honour Judge Cowell. (P109-114)

16. Supplemental Judgment, 22 September 2010. HHJ Cowell. (P115-118)

17. Notice to Appeal, includes issues arising from Human Rights Act 1998 and 13 October 2010 Grounds of Appeal. (P119 to 130, specifically Pages 127-130)

18. Samples of requests for transcripts to Civil Appeal Office. (P131-132)

19. Email from Bircham Dyson Bell to Civil Appeals Office. (P133)

20. Email from Applicant to Civil Appeals Office. (P134) and referencing 13 Sept 2010 email (P135)

21. Email from Civil Appeals Office, 3 Jan 2012 (P136)

22. Email from Civil Appeals Office, Jan 2012 (P136)

23. Email from Civil Appeals Office to Nikolaus Grubeck, the Judicial Assistant to the Master of the Rolls, Nikolaus Grubeck. (155)

24. 9 January 2012, Notes of Response by Applicant supplied to Court. (P137-154)

25. 25 January 2012 - Bench Memo (P156-163)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF DOCUMENT CONTINUED

26.       Emails, 6 February stating all the documents to be put before the Lord or Lady Justice. (P164-165).

27.       Applicant replies, 6 Feb 2012 (P166-186)

28.       Civil Appeals Office Order refusing permission to appeal, Rt Hon Lord Justice Jacob, 24 February 2012. (P187)

29.       Enquiries reflecting interest continued in hiring Applicant’s premises (P188-189)

30.       Oral Hearing, LJ Ward, Royal Courts of Justice. 10 May 2012. (P190-195)           

31.       10 May 2012 Order to say Permission to Appeal and Stay of Execution to be adjourned (P196)

32.       Correspondence between L. Angus and M. Vasilescu, Civil Appeals Office, (P197-199)

33.       11 May email from Ms Angus to Ms Vasilescu. Note to Lord Justice Ward,16 Aug 2012. (P200)

34.       Applicant’s correspondence with Registrar re transcripts, Email 19 June (P201) and Second Judgment, 22 September 2010. (P202-207)

35.       Applicant’s email to Civil Appeals Office, re inaccuracies in notes of the other side’s solicitors, 17 July 2012. (P208-209)

36.       Further representations/requests from Garden Court Chambers, for transcripts to facilitate preparation of Appeal. 14 Aug 2012, 10 September 2012. (P210-213)

37.       Case Progression Chronology, 22 October 2012, Civil Appeals Office (P214-217)

38.       Order, Court of Appeal, permission to appeal on 7 of 10 grounds, (permission to further amend grounds of appeal given orally to the applicant), granting of a stay, 4 December 2012 (P218-219)

39.       Original amended Grounds of Appeal of Pro-bono counsel, Jan Luba QC, 16 November 2012. (P220-221)

40.       N244 application for amended Grounds of Appeal. (P222-250)

41.       Skeleton argument written 17 March 2013 and submitted by the Applicant, Ms Flores nee: Gavin to the Court of Appeal 21 March 2013, (P251-284)

42.       N244 Application was also for Smith and Williamson report to be referred to in the assessment of damages, 21 March 2013. (P222)

43.       N244 Amended Grounds of Appeal still in application. 31 March 2013. (P285)

44.       29 April 2013 Letter from A. Smith Listings Office, Civil Appeals Office. (P285)

45.       Draft Judgment is sent to the Applicant by email 17 May 2013. (P286-295).

46.       Applicant’s replies by email on 17 May 2013 stating clause 5(22) is not in the Judgment. (P296-299)

47.       19 May 2013 email reply from applicant to Judgment with full evidence of submissions (P300-316)

48.       N244 request for transcripts of Court of Appeal hearing and a stay of Judgment, with submissions, corrections to the draft Judgment (P317-318)

49.       Application Notice 23 May 2013 (contention that the N244 Application was not given due consideration). (P319)

50.       Order refusing a stay of Judgment 24 May 2013. (P320)

51.       Order dismissing appeal. 24 May 2013. (P321)

52.       Publicity on the case (P322-329)

53.       Appeal to the Supreme Court with citations, including reference to Article 1 of Convention on Human Rights, (protection of property). Issue of public interest (insurance), failure to supply transcripts of Court of Appeal hearing, failure to respond substantively to amended grounds of appeal and a request that the Smith and Williamson, forensic report commissioned by both parties be referred to in the assessment of damages. Certificate of Service, 21 June 2014. (P330-339) Human Rights Act (P336)

54.       Email from the other side’s solicitors supporting Applicant’s assertion of having asked for 5(22) of the lease as an implied covenant. (P340-344)

55.       Supreme Court Order of refusal to appeal based on ‘no application in law’ and not addressing the applicants issues of being misrepresented in full at the Court of Appeal .5 February 2014. Order of Supreme Court. (P345)

56.       Letter of inadmissibility from ECHR (including typographical error). April 3 2014. The deadline for the additional information requested by the Court in its letter of 10 February 2014 was 4 April. Email 10 Feb 2014 (P346)

57.       Additional documentation was posted and faxed on 3 April. (P347-357)

58.       Email correspondence with the UK’s Supreme Court & Civil Appeals Office confirming that all domestic remedies are exhausted and still requesting a transcript of Court of Appeal hearing 2 and 3 May 2013. (P359-361)

The completed application form should be signed and sent by post to:
The Registrar European Court of Human RightsCouncil of Europe 67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX FRANCE

 

Mary J Valdivieso Fortuno Flores 32 Tonbridge House Tonbridge Street London WC1H 9PB                                                                                                 info@spaceshift.co.uk European Court Of Human Rights                                    19 August 2014 Dear Clare Ovey, Thank you for your letter dated 8 August 2014, received Friday 16 August 2014. According to Rule 47, Contents of an individual application. 2 (b) The applicant may however supplement the information by appending to the application form further details on the facts, alleged violations of the convention and the relevant arguments. Such information shall not exceed 20 pages. The Facts, alleged violations of the convention and the relevant argument is the 20 pages exactly supplemented in the application and was cut down substantially to adhere to Rule 47. This is in accordance with 2 (b) of Rule 47. 3.1 (a) copies of documents relating to the decisions or measures complained of, judicial or otherwise; Copies of documents relating to the decisions or measures complained of, judicial or otherwise; relates to the documents in bundle A & B in chronological order. This is in compliance with 3.1 (a) of Rule 47. The date of the application as you verified is 28th July 2014 as such this complies with 6 (a) rule 47, within the six months. 6. (a) The date of introduction of the application for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the convention shall be the date on which an application form satisfying the requirements of this Rule is sent to the Court. The date of dispatch shall be the date of the postmark. However if you still wish me to submit a summary of my application outside of these stated rules I am happy to do so under section 6 (b). 6.(a) The date of introduction of the application for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the convention shall be the date on which an application form satisfying the requirements of this Rule is sent to the Court. The date of dispatch shall be the date of the postmark. (b) Where it finds it justified, the Court may nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction. Also if you wish alternatively, to me to sending you a further ‘summary’ as you requested, you can if you wish decide instead to look at the summary sent also which is enclosed in bundle A on pages 348-351 please let me know what you wish exactly in accordance with 6 (b) or otherwise. Please note that everything in the Bundle A & B relates to 3.1 (a) copies of documents relating to the decisions or measures complained of, judicial or otherwise; Including all judicial decisions and other measures as appropriate and necessary for this rule compliance. I enclose a copy of the application 28th July 2014 with the allowed further 20 pages of the, facts, the breach of articles and the relevant argument, appended to the application as copy proof of complying with the rule 47. With Article 35 1, The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. Finally the decision of the Supreme Court was Feb 5th 2014 and I further complied with this rule and have applied within the six months deadline of the final court in the UK to make a judicial decision. I have consulted a number of agencies and having seen my application and your return letter they have all verify my compliance in the 28th July 2014 application to Rule 47 as admissible specifically with reference to the 20 pages rule as it is generally understood. However do please let me know if you need me to provide you with anything further or feel free to call me on London 0044- (0)207-837-6680 anytime. Yours Sincerely Mary Josofar Valdivieso Fortuno Flores. MJVFF. (AKA nee: Jo Gavin)

 

 

Ms Mary Josofar                                                             Ms Clare Ovey Valdivieso Fortuno Flores                                                  Head of Division 32 Tonbridge House                                                            European Court Tonbridge Street                                                            of Human Rights London WC1H 9BP                                                            Counsel Of Europe                                                                                     67075 Strasbourg Cedex                                                                                     France 6 October 2014 Dear Clare Ovey Further to your letter of 8 August 2014 (received 16 August) and my reply of 19 August (arriving 21 August) I write to enquire about application, reference 55519/14, as counsel, consulted on compliance, has forwarded an advice in relation to fees and if at all possible I am anxious to provide preliminary instruction to counsel in the event of the case being taken forward. I look forward to a reply at your earliest convenience and in the meantime if I can provide any further information please do not hesitate to be in touch. With best wishes. Yours sincerely Mary Josofar Valdivieso Fortuno Flores