Corrupted Justice - Case Outstanding

Dear UK Underwriters,                                                                                                5^th May 2016

In the case of Gavin & Anr v Community Housing Association

Your company trading as UK Underwriters building insurers, held at all times in 2005 when my landlord made a claim, ‘that the landlord breached the terms of the insurance by failing to repair’.

However it was proved at the Court of Appeal 2013 8 yrs later that the landlord held no liability to repair and that the building was insured for repair at all times, for parties and contractual benefit of the landlord and the tenant, as seen in my two leases for 104 and 106-108 Cromer Street, London WC1.

Your position led you to not paying for damage to the structure, eventually put me out of business, affecting my 3rd party rights to have the buildings repaired and to trade from them. 

I have a forensic accountants report from Smith and Williamson on the losses.

I therefore consider this to now be a personal injuries case and an act of professional negligence.

As insurers to my landlord at the time of the claim you were sacked by them once you refused to pay us, as you were blaming the landlord for breaching the policy and not mitigating the losses by repairing on time.

However you then went on to defend the landlord against their ‘liability’ to repair, backing the landlord in legal costs and setting us up against one another. This is because neither of you wanted to pay us so your decision was to turn on me the tenant. Therefore UK Underwriters in effect not only failed me in terms of repairs but also proceeded to defend a liability claim alongside the landlord when you said the landlord was at fault. That I consider is vexatious position causing injury to my good work and myself.

I have tirelessly tried to get compensation for my losses inside and outside of court and I can show you this in the following two letters as well as the fact I have kept the issue as public as I can.

If I do not hear from you within 10 days I will be serving you with particulars of claim and lodging them with the Supreme Court to enforce to my legal claim from the Court of Appeal and for damages.

Kind Regards

Ms Jo Flores

Nee: Gavin

Friday, 1 April 2016

I have omitted my barristers name BUT no answer to this letter -

Breach of Part F Ventilation - Not fit for human habitation - No air in the premises!

It's one thing installing a glass pavement but owners make sure you SEAL it properly around the edges or you could face a nightmare in leaks!

Mick Sweeney CEO

100 Chalk Farm Road,

NW1 8EH.

17^th March 2016

Dear Mr. Sweeney,

RE: MS MARY JOSOFAR VALDIVIESO FORTUNO FLORES

My name is REDACTED, a barrister authorized by the Bar Standards Board to provide representation on a Direct Access Basis.

I have been instructed to represent Ms Mary Josofar, Valdivieso Fortuno Flores, abbreviated in the Court of Appeal in May 2013 to Ms Jo Flores, who was originally Ms Mary Moss, Chairperson of New NAYPIC / Youth Parliament and then was known to you from 2000 as the commercial tenant of both premises 104 & 106-108 Cromer Street WC1H 8BZ as Ms Jo Gavin in the case of; Gavin and Cracy v Community Housing Association (2008-2013). I write this letter on my client’s behalf in relation to outstanding matters concerning this case.

Ms Jo Flores (and later her then business partner from 2004-10) became a tenant of two commercial properties 104 & 106-108 Cromer Street from 2000 to 2008 when the landlord she says trespassed/forfeited both properties for a disputed non-payment of rent, after the tenants had suffered a series of disrepair at both premises for four years, including no ventilation breaching part F building regulations (not fit for human habitation) and several leaks including waste pipes bursting into the premises for which the tenants believed they had an unreasonably long delay and still outstanding claim on the insurance, so that they could have use of both premises, as established in court in July 2010 at a ten days trail and then in a permission to Appeal hearing in Dec 2012 and finally culminating with the outcome in May 2013 that the structure was insured.

After the Court of Appeal hearing in May 2013 having represented herself she went on to the Supreme Court and then she proceeded to the European Court.

Ms Jo Flores was left without a business at a crucial time in her children’s rights and art career and more importantly without any means to pay for a lawyer. She has therefore been slow in obtaining advice for this reason but now has done so.

My client wrote to you in May and in June 2014 but you failed to respond. I hope that you can now answer her questions from the legal advice taken, as the claim finishes three years after any decision is made, so that deadline is the 25^th May 2016.

In the Court of Appeal Judgment on 25th May 2013 it states in paragraph 42 in absolute terms

"The repair of the structure of the building is catered for through the provisions of clause 7(2) [obligation to insure]"

"in the face of these provisions there is no reason based on necessity or business efficacy to alter the balance of the scheme by imposing an implied covenant to repair on the landlord ..."

 At Paragraph [43] to "the existence of what the parties obviously intended should be a comprehensive scheme for the repair of both the demised and the retained parts of the building"

At Paragraph [38],  "disrepair of the structure ... constitutes an insurable risk and the landlord is required under the terms of the leases of 104 and 106 to apply the insurance monies in making good the damage and disrepair"

The Court's basic point is that in appropriate circumstances the landlord has an obligation to pursue the insurance route.  Looking at clause 7(2) of the lease, if the premises are damaged by an insured risk the landlord must (to paraphrase) with reasonable speed use all relevant insurance monies received from the insurers to repair/reinstate the premises.  This in turn implies that the landlord has an obligation to use reasonable effort to pursue an insurance claim.

  

So it seems Ms Flores needs to assert or recover any of the contractual benefits of the policy, which she might be entitled to limited to damage to property.

 The said insurers, UKU underwritten by Lloyds Ireland & joint excess liability insurers Royal & Sun Alliance did not fix the structure in both premises104, namely the floor from Jan 2008 to Sept 2010 & 106-108, namely the lack of ventilation breaching part F building regulations from April 2004-Sept 2010.

It was stated in the Court of Appeal in May 2013, that the structure was covered by insurance despite the landlords failed attempt to say at one point that it was the responsibility of the tenant.

Ms Flores took advice in 2014 from a partner at a law firm specializing in insurance and they advised that since the Court of Appeal judgment was only decided within the last few years, it was only at that stage she would have known there was a lawful claim.

Ms Flores is acting now from her first knowledge of the lawful claim subject to third party insurance claims law, noted interest and that the insurance was clearly taken out by you the landlord for the benefit of the commercial tenants as established in the Court of Appeal.

The lawful claim is within 3 years of the tenants knowledge, although as Ms Flores has stated throughout, and you may agree, the claim has already been made, by you the landlord through the property claim form in 2005 and so, as such still remains outstanding.

It is submitted that you therefore have a duty to chase up the claim, even if you have to use your current insurers to do so, in line with that duty.

 In a report from 2009 by expert Mr Mike Parrett in conducting a 4-stage survey of 106-108 premises with regards to the ventilation, he states

13.7

"Additional static ventilation to the main cellar room to business unit 2 should be provided to comply with the requirements of the approved document Part F of the current Building regulations."

Since the repair to the structural ventilation was made in 2012 this indicates there was throughout ongoing structural material damage for which the material claims, are still outstanding.

I am re-visiting if there is anything you can do for Ms Flores with the insurers to speed up the outstanding claims for material damage that you made in the property claim forms in 2005.

In light that your own liability not to repair was also established but in view of your duty as established in the Court of Appeal in May 2013 to chase up any outstanding insurance claims, namely the absent ventilation at 106-108 & the floor at 104 and any reasonable offer of settlement due to the insurance delays and consequential losses, I request that you now perform your duty and let my client know the outcome.

Given the ongoing delay in relation to this matter and the fact my client has written to you previously in relation to the same issues, I request that you respond within the next 14 days so that a resolution can be achieved without the expense of further proceedings.

Yours Sincerely

REDACTED

Barrister

Alistair Jackson <Alistair.Jackson@bbc.co.uk>

To

scarletmaguire@yahoo.com

12/06/12 at 3:47 PM

Email as sent

_________________________________
Alistair Jackson
BBC Panorama | W1 NBH 04D| BBC Broadcasting House | Portland Place | London, W1A 1AA
Mobile: 07836 524 427 Direct Line : 0203 614 0014
 * mailto:alistair.jackson@bbc.co.uk
_________________________________

From: Alistair Jackson
Sent: 06 December 2012 15:20
To: 'mario.seisdedos@gcc.rsagroup.com'
Subject: JO GAVIN ( now JO FLORES) and CHANTAL CRACY v COMMUNITY HOUSING

Dear Mario,

I was in the High Court last Tuesday when the above case was heard.  I am researching the issues emerging out of the case and would be grateful if you are able to provide guidance as to RSA’s position regarding it.

In summary I would like to know

·         Why have Royal Sun Alliance funded the landlord’s legal costs despite the tenant ( Ms Flores) also being a signatory to the policy?

·         Why was the tenants costs arising from the flooding not met by her insurers in this case?

·         Now that Ms Flores has been given leave to appeal does RSA still intend to fund her landlord’s counter claim?

·         To what extent is the charitable work of legal opponents to RSA funded legal actions taken into account when deciding whether to settle claims or not?

·         To what extent are RSA concerned that its support for this legal action is hindering the work of a charity involved in child protection?

Regards and thanks

Alistair Jackson

_________________________________
Alistair Jackson
BBC Panorama | W1 NBH 04D| BBC Broadcasting House | Portland Place | London, W1A 1AA
Mobile: 07836 524 427 Direct Line : 0203 614 0014
 * mailto:alistair.jackson@bbc.co.uk
_________________________________