Listen Here is about listening to Mary Moss

FAO Mary Moss‏

FAO Mary Moss

Actions

New NAYPIC

09:40

To: Rachel Gregory

To be clear I find any contact with the police or the media highly suspicious after my raid.
I want to set up NAYPIC again and have a youth economy so as this abuse stops for those who are experiencing it now.
The authorities have disrespected my good work and position much like they did to good coppers that did want the truth.
I have no trust.
I have to remain independent.
Do not contact me again.
Mary

Actions

New NAYPIC

09:34

To: Rachel Gregory

The credibility of your investigation will be thrown into doubt by any lawyer when you have a convicted Fraudster who robbed hundreds of pensioner of their life savings in the Olympic scam as seen on the BBC. I cannot be associated with this investigation on the premise that;
1. You contacted my old case.
2. You treat a con man with respect.
I am prepared to do one thing and that is to speak to my old case. If you truly think she would be disturbed by speaking to someone from her past that tells me too much information on how she may not have wanted to be contacted in the first place.

Many of my cases that found me after the police contacted them have spoken of bad management of their investigation and one in particular was also raided and sent to a hotel for 3 days and no one kept him away from the fraudster Chris Fay or the agent provocteur Bill Maloney.

So forgive my misgivings. I have set NAYPIC up myself and done this with my own professionalism as former chair so my intentions cannot be in doubt. Please don't involve me a a conduit for the police I am ONLY a conduit for the abused.

Many Thanks
Mary

Actions

Rachel Gregory (r.gregory@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk)

Add to contacts

09:01

To: naypic@hotmail.com

Dear Mary

Thank you for getting back to me. I must have misunderstood part of our conversation last week in as much as I thought we had agreed that if SP ( I hope you don’t mind me using initials instead of the full name) makes a written statement allowing you to talk to us, you would then meet us to look at the handwritten notes to establish if they are indeed your notes. My apologies if I was unclear. I thought we had agreed for me to email you a very bland email initially to ensure the email address was correct before making an arrangement for either myself of DC Kath Hartley to call you to arrange to come and see you ( once SP had given permission for you to help us).

I did tell you that I wasn’t going to ask SP to call you to give permission herself as I couldn’t  promise she would want to do that. I can’t make promises on her behalf. I’m not sure SP is ready or wanting to talk to anyone from that period of her life yet and I need to be absolutely guided by her.

I have absolutely no intention of raiding your home Mary. I was and am being completely honest with you when I say that my interest is to provenance some notes I believe you made in 1990 that relates to familial abuse of SP.

I am really hoping that you can help us  as you may have so much information that could help my investigation in Coventry.

Can you let me know please if you’re happy for me to call you at some point and if so, when you are likely to be available?

Best wishes

Rachel

DS 7408 Rachel Gregory

FAO Mary Moss‏

FAO Mary Moss

Actions

New NAYPIC

09:40

To: Rachel Gregory

To be clear I find any contact with the police or the media highly suspicious after my raid.
I want to set up NAYPIC again and have a youth economy so as this abuse stops for those who are experiencing it now.
The authorities have disrespected my good work and position much like they did to good coppers that did want the truth.
I have no trust.
I have to remain independent.
Do not contact me again.
Mary

New NAYPIC

09:34

The credibility of your investigation will be thrown into doubt by any lawyer when you have a convicted Fraudster who robbed hundreds of pensioner of their life savings in the Olympic scam as seen on

Rachel Gregory (r.gregory@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk)

Add to contacts

09:01

Dear Mary Thank you for getting back to me. I must have misunderstood part of our conversation last week in as much as I thought we had agreed that if SP ( I hope you don’t mind me using initials inst

Actions

New NAYPIC

08:39

To: Rachel Gregory

Dear Rachel,

That is twice you are saying I agree to things I am not. Firstly when Ben phoned me unusually on my landline as he has never done that before, I was in a professional meeting and said merely I was unavailable to speak that minute and had another meeting at 1.30pm in town and that I was not available to speak until 4.00pm. That was all. Ben Lampkin then went on to mention the fraudster Chris Fay whom he said had been in court or words like that, I was so furious that he had not listened to me when I said I WAS in a meeting and said to him, I really cannot talk about this now!

when you called you said thank you for agreeing to speak with me I reiterated I had not agreed to anything and said during our conversation that I was not working for the police or in any way a police informant and when you mentioned one of my old cases (of which there were over 500 in 5 years) I made it clear that I would need her permission for me to verify anything with you as I would if I worked for the NSPCC or social services. I don't see the police coming in tipping their offices upside down? Nor interfering in the quiet enjoyment of their lives without any legal recourse.

After I spoke to Ben I went to see a lawyer who said they would assist me if you try anything again that is similar to my raid by operation Fairbank that led to operation Fernbridge.

When I asked you if the old case of mine had contacted you you said no WE contacted her.

When I asked you to get her to call me for permission you said I can't promise that.

When I said that mentioning Chris Fay undermines your case and I hooped my old case knew that you said we just want to get them and that you had interviewed Fay the frauster(whom NAYPIC dissociated with by asking him to leave over 25 years ago.

So please get my old case to contact me. That is my position end of.

I am sorry that somehow you want me to be in any way associated with a Fraudster but it seems to be the position of the state since Tom Watson and Paul Settle disrespected my work early on in this fiasco.

I work for children's rights and NOT politics!

Thank you fr your time.

Best Wishes and good luck.

Mary Moss.

PS How you came across my handwriting in my own boxes will verify of course that it is my handwriting as long as it is not a photocopy. As I say I do not trust my own boxes now as they have been out of my control and could be tampered with for what ever reason.

Actions

Rachel Gregory (r.gregory@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk)

Add to contacts

29/04/2016

To: naypic@hotmail.com

Hi Mary

Thank you for speaking to me yesterday on the phone.

I will contact you again next week as agreed to discuss when we can possibly meet and obtain a written statement from you.

Many thanks

Rachel

DS 7408 Rachel Gregory

Child Abuse Investigation Department

Coventry and Solihull

West Midlands Police

The Housing Bill do we all have to make the same mistakes before we learn... Educate before it's too late

Everybody knew - Nobody said..

Ms Mary Moss c/o info@spaceshift.co.uk

Our Ref:58/011859/08                                30 April 2008

Dear Ms Moss

Thank you for your recent email to the Prime Minister about young people in care, the Youth Parliament and the problems you are having with your landlord, Community Housing Association (CHA).  Your letter has been passed to this Department for reply on the issues raised about your landlord as we have policy responsibility for Registered Social Landlords (RSLs - more commonly known as housing associations). I am unable to comment on the points you raised on children in care and the Youth Parliament as they do not fall within our policy area. May I suggest you refer any correspondence on these issues to the Department for Children, Schools and Families directly.

You have asked for the Housing Minister to investigate why you have not received compensation from your landlord and establish an independent investigation on the disrepair of CHA properties. We are unable to agree to your request because neither Ministers nor officials can intervene in the day to day activities of RSLs, such as CHA, as they are independent not-for-profit organisations responsible for their own aims and objectives, performance and management.  This Department sponsors the Housing Corporation to fund new affordable housing and regulate RSLs in England.  RSLs, such as CHA that are registered with the Housing Corporation, must meet the Corporation's eligibility and registration criteria, and they must then demonstrate ongoing compliance with the Corporation's Regulatory Code and guidance in respect of their financial viability, governance and management.

I am aware of the problems you are having with your landlord as Councillor Jonathan Simpson of Kings Cross Ward, Camden Council, recently raised this issue with the Housing Minister, Caroline Flint. The Housing Corporation was able to supply the Communities and Local Government with background information on your case and it would appear that the delay in resolving the insurance issue is because the insurer, Royal Sun Alliance, is awaiting evidence of the financial losses incurred. This is essentially a contractual matter between you and your landlord and one in which this Department is unable to intervene.

The Corporation’s Regulatory Code also requires RSLs to have a responsive repair service that meets legal and contractual obligations and is efficient and effective. The Housing Corporation's Regulatory Code also requires all RSLs to have in place an appropriate procedure for dealing with formal complaints. If you are not happy with any of the actions of your landlord including its handling of repairs and maintenance then you should consider contacting your landlord’s complaints officer with regards to making a formal complaint.  I am attaching a copy of the booklet "Complaining about a housing association" which you may find useful.

If, having completed this process, you remain unhappy with the outcome then your next course of action would be to refer your complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.  I am therefore enclosing a booklet that explains the Ombudsman's scheme and provides their contact details.

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Barry Goodwin

www.youthparliament.co.uk New NAYPIC / Youth Parliament 2003 launch party at our two premise...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6hs2IH9RuA&feature=youtu.be

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!

You probably stand on many of these Luxcrete pavements per day without ever noticing the name!

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 authorised 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 specialising 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

How can so many people conflate two separate cases? Andrew was my snuff movies case.. nothing to do with the Elm Case.. now all those who have used him you know who you are, leave him alone, Midland is politics of the highest order.. Andrew was just one of the victims of another crime as seen on www.youthparliament.co.uk / the model group its aims and potential / the need for a project like ours and how we have identified this - • Andrew, Bradford , sexually abused/child porn/snuff movies. We have all the evidence of flights, hotels etc. Andrew subsequently kidnapped from one of our development workers house when he stepped out her flat door. He had a blanket thrown over his head and was taken away in a vehicle. Seen next day in a Rolls Royce by a member. A few days later showed up at our offices demanding we give him back all evidence as he had the Walthamstow brothers outside waiting for him and the evidence. He was told he would be set up in a nice cushy job as a photographer back in Bradford if he behaved.

https://youtu.be/rnOMvItGgLA - Andrew talking about his experience of snuff movies from a tape recorded in 1990 - He still does NOT have a lawyer despite being core to police invsetigations!!!

While you are busy doing politic's cases like this need investigating.. Andrew is being harrassed by the media THIS MUST STOP -

Andrew does not have a lawyer despite being core to police investigations - Any help with that would be appreciated -

This is an attempt to prove he was abused and he has got evidence of it - He was a NAYPIC case 1990 - Not to be confused with any other!