Saturday, 22 November 2014
Tuesday, 11 November 2014
European Court of Human Rights will not even look at my application!
So, I got the letter back from the European Court of Human Rights, it was the same as before.. clearly they too have been got at since they won't even look at my application. My only relief if there is one, is that after 6 years of having to live on £52 a week, to remain eligible for legal aid, I can now get on with my life, what ever that may be. I can stop being a legal ranter and maybe go into policy or something like that. That is if after all this I am at all employable. I certainly cannot set up my own business, buy any property or even look forward to making money with a half a million pounds costs order against me.
I feel sorry for all the tenants that due to my case will find it difficult to get an implied repairing obligation unlike when they had at least Barrett v Lounova & Cockburn v Smith, where a landlord who retained ownership of a building that leaked into another premise remained liable for any damage when parts outside leaked into another person premises and the landlord remained as in Ryland & Fletcher 'Absolutely liable'. The insurance companies will be please that Ryland and Fletcher is not back on the law books as that will save them a hell of a lot of money.
But what is more worrying is that in all this, I never ever stated I wanted an implied repairing obligation all I ever wanted was, as in Earle v Charalambous and BT v Sun Life that in the construction of my lease that said I was insured by the landlord for the building for which I paid my part of the insurance to my landlord was not broken by them breaking the terms of the insurance by not repairing on time and therefore they, not me, made my insurance void.
It is a sad day when the law ignores what you plead and makes up there own case. Drags you headlong into 6 years of fighting the law as a small business and at all junctures one faces no application in law but lots of corporate interests in not letting this average Jo win her life back.
Still I hang up my legal robes and let you make of it all what you will.
I feel sorry for all the tenants that due to my case will find it difficult to get an implied repairing obligation unlike when they had at least Barrett v Lounova & Cockburn v Smith, where a landlord who retained ownership of a building that leaked into another premise remained liable for any damage when parts outside leaked into another person premises and the landlord remained as in Ryland & Fletcher 'Absolutely liable'. The insurance companies will be please that Ryland and Fletcher is not back on the law books as that will save them a hell of a lot of money.
But what is more worrying is that in all this, I never ever stated I wanted an implied repairing obligation all I ever wanted was, as in Earle v Charalambous and BT v Sun Life that in the construction of my lease that said I was insured by the landlord for the building for which I paid my part of the insurance to my landlord was not broken by them breaking the terms of the insurance by not repairing on time and therefore they, not me, made my insurance void.
It is a sad day when the law ignores what you plead and makes up there own case. Drags you headlong into 6 years of fighting the law as a small business and at all junctures one faces no application in law but lots of corporate interests in not letting this average Jo win her life back.
Still I hang up my legal robes and let you make of it all what you will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)