Dear UK
Underwriters, 5th
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
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.
17th 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 25th 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
To
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
_________________________________
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
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
_________________________________
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
_________________________________
