Your Help

It has been a while since i have posted, but nothing much has happened since last time. If anything, we have been highly stressed and even more depressed over this matter.

It has got to the stage now where we must consider all our options, and we believe the next option is to seek full legal help, via a solicitor / lawyer. Unfortunately Lawyers are not cheap, and for good reason, they are highly trained in the legal arena, and know the law regarding such issues almost inside and out. For all those years training and court cases come a cost, where us mere normal folk have to rely on what the lawyers say and do.

We don’t really want to have to do this, but in this world, you don’t get anything if you don’t ask. Plus, we have pondered all other actions and to find ways in which ordinary people, like yourself can help us, and could, in all theory, make all the difference.

Normally on the internet, there is not much anyone can do, other than sit back and wait for updates on this blog. However, there is many ways you can help, and with the prospect of a huge legal battle versus local authority, we will need all the help we can get.

So, how can you help? Simple, by making a small donation to our cause.

Myself, and my partner will not benefit from this, not 1 penny, as all funds raised will go directly to legal costs involved, and to challenge the local authority. Also, as soon as the legal battle is either won...or lost, all procedes from donations will go directly to an animal charity, which must be registered and legal of course.

So, as you can see, any help is highly apreciated and most welcome of course. Every penny counts, and will help out fight in this matter, and hopefully it will also aid others in the same possition to fight thier causes too.

Thoughts

There you have it folks, the letter i sent to them. their reply, in a nutshell, was to enforce that their tenancy agreement rules apply, regardless of what we say or do, and that’s all their is too it.

They basically posted to us all the events that happened since July 6th 2010, on their behalf. There was no mention of the challenge, no addressing of our concerns regarding the rules, and certainly no leeway in the matter. That’s typical council though, they just wont back down.

It’s looking more and more though it will go to court, whereby we will express our opinion and rights.

Of course though, our cats, and my family are first, then my allegiance to the general public to inform you all here, right on this blog, of the situation as it develops.

I will be writing to the council to put things in writing, so they are in no illusion that i will go as far as they take it, either way is good to me.

Pass the Ball–part 3

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

1977 CHAPTER 50

10 Evasion by means of secondary contract. E+W+N.I.

A person is not bound by any contract term prejudicing or taking away rights of his which arise under, or in connection with the performance of, another contract, so far as those rights extend to the enforcement of another’s liability which this Part of this Act prevents that other from excluding or restricting.

Explanatory provisions

11 The “reasonableness” test. E+W+N.I.

(1)In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this Part of this Act, section 3 of the M6 Misrepresentation Act 1967 and section 3 of the M7 Misrepresentation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.

=============================================================

Implied Terms

Source: http://www.gillhams.com/articles/141.cfm

General Application to Contracts

The rule is of general application and terms may be implied into contracts of virtually any nature, involving arbitration, agency, building, technology licences, sales of goods, supply of services and real property. The implication of terms remains a matter of law for a court to decide with the guidance of established legal principle.

When Terms are implied into a Contract

Terms may be implied by the facts of a particular case, which are considered to reflect the parties’ intentions. The general principles are that an implied term must:

1. not contradict any express term of the contract

2. be reasonable and equitable

3. be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, such that the contract cannot be effective without it

4. so obvious that it goes without saying, and

5. be capable of being clearly expressed.

The factual background at the time of formation of the contract is the relevant time to consider whether the parties probably had the term in mind but did not express it, but probably would have expressed it, had it arisen in the court’s view of fairness or policy.

We look forward to your reply on this matter, preferably within 14 days for an acknowledgement, another 14 for a reply, no more than 30 days at tops.

Signed

Pass the Ball–part 2

The following pages are for our and your reference only; they also form part of this whole report.

Misrepresentation

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation

Misrepresentation means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party and has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.

There are two types of misrepresentation in contract law, fraud in the factum and fraud in inducement. Fraud in the factum focuses on whether the party in question knew they were creating a contract. If the party did not know that they were entering into a contract, there is no meeting of the minds, and the contract is void. Fraud in inducement focuses on misrepresentation attempting to get the party to enter into the contract. Misrepresentation of a material fact (if the party knew the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) makes a contract voidable.

According to Gordon v. Selico[55] it is possible to make a misrepresentation either by words or by conduct, although not everything said or done is capable of constituting a misrepresentation. Generally, statements of opinion or intention are not statements of fact in the context of misrepresentation.

Both an order for specific performance and an injunction are discretionary remedies, originating for the most part in equity. Neither is available as of right and in most jurisdictions and most circumstances a court will not normally order specific performance. A contract for the sale of real property is a notable exception. In most jurisdictions, the sale of real property is enforceable by specific performance. Even in this case the defences to an action in equity (such as laches, the bona fide purchaser rule, or unclean hands) may act as a bar to specific performance.

Related to orders for specific performance, an injunction may be requested when the contract prohibits a certain action. Action for injunction would prohibit the person from performing the act specified in the contract.

==============================================================

Misrepresentation Act 1967

1967 CHAPTER 7

Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/7

An Act to amend the law relating to innocent misrepresentations and to amend sections 11 and 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893.

[22nd March 1967]

1 Removal of certain bars to rescission for innocent misrepresentation. E+W

Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him, and—

(a)the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract; or

(b) The contract has been performed;

or both, then, if otherwise he would be entitled to rescind the contract without alleging fraud, he shall be so entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, notwithstanding the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

2 Damages for misrepresentation.E+W

(1)Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true.

(2)Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him otherwise than fraudulently, and he would be entitled, by reason of the misrepresentation, to rescind the contract, then, if it is claimed, in any proceedings arising out of the contract, that the contract ought to be or has been rescinded, the court or arbitrator may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party.

(3)Damages may be awarded against a person under subsection (2) of this section whether or not he is liable to damages under subsection (1) thereof, but where he is so liable any award under the said subsection (2) shall be taken into account in assessing his liability under the said subsection (1).

Pass the Ball–part 1

It’s been a week, one that i have been eagerly awaiting, since giving the council a sort of update.

Here is what i sent them.

Dear Sir / Madam.

On reflection of the situation, we wish to advise you of the current status.

1. We wish to appeal against your decision to keep 4 cats.

• We strongly believe, and uphold our rights to challenge your decision, given the fact that we were misled or forced to sign the tenancy agreement under duress. Therefore, legally, the whole contract of tenancy comes under Misrepresentation Act 1967. We enclose a copy of that exact law for your reference.

• We strongly believe that we had permissions to have 4 cats since 2003, based on Implied Terms. To establish what Implied Terms mean, I have enclosed the legal definition of what a court of law would interpret Implied Terms as.

• We feel that, your rules do not clearly identify, nor do they give reason as to why anyone cannot have animals / pets in a certain property. This could easily be interpreted at Misrepresentation, since it does not clearly identify what any older tenants under old tenancy rules can do regarding pets they already have or obtained permissions for. Plus, many tenants that may have the old rules may not be aware of the new rules and so they too are misled.

• We also feel the entire ruling in the tenancy agreement is not based on facts. Therefore it’s unreasonable and not justified. It can easily be interpreted in favour of Blackpool Coastal Housing at any time they see fit, and therefore any tenant does not properly understand the full rules.

• We feel they are discriminating against those decent, law abiding people that would love a few pets to keep them company, and as Blackpool Coastal Housing have made us aware, you have also told a lady that is disabled that she too must remove her dog because of the rules. This we find rather disturbing from any housing group.

2. To date, and despite the continuous bullying, we have contacted almost every cat charity organisation that is legally and responsibly owned, to establish if there is any possibility of re homing 2 of our cats that you requested.

• We have been told, on more than several occasions, the situation regarding cat charities, including RSPCA, is excessively overwhelmed. Due to the severe nature and sheer numbers involved, the RSPCA have advised us that they no longer take in any animals at this time.

• Media coverage has also indicated on the more wider problem of re homing, and as a result, focused on the point that some places have to put animals to sleep, even healthy ones, because there is no room.

• Considering the current situation with re homing, and even the attempts Blackpool coastal Housing have made, to no avail, we are not in a position to throw bureaucratic weight around.

• We have even tried Facebook, twitter, blogs and other online medium, including a list of websites. Again, all to no avail.

3. At no point during any appeal or challenge will any of our 4 cats be removed or re homed. Since we have a legal right to challenge your rules, and since this is ongoing (has been since July 2010), all 4 cats will remain at this property until such time that it's been resolved legally and reasonably. This is not negotiable

4. If, and only if, we do have to re home any of our 4 cats, they will

• be re homed in an appropriate environment (and with as much time as it will take to re home them),

• be given loving and caring home, where they will not be put to sleep out of convenience.

• Again, there will be no time limits involved, since we are aware of the situation that animal homes and other places are under; it could take months if not years. This is not negotiable.

5. We feel that Blackpool Coastal Housing have failed to asses the situation correctly, and in doing so, are acting incorrectly.

• Blackpool Coastal Housing failed to asses if any of our cats had or have been neutered. To clarify, we have neutered all our cats; they are incapable of having any litters. So this solves the problem of any more kittens in the property.

• Blackpool coastal Housing failed to inquire if the cats were all female, all male or a combination. Again, to clarify, we have all female cats, another reason that they won’t produce any kittens; it's impossible for them to breed being all female.

• Blackpool Coastal Housing failed to obtain any facts or figures if our cats go out anywhere, even in the communal area. To clarify, we do not let our cats out, nor do we let any other cats in to our property. Our cats are perfectly happy, as things are, no pressures, no stress, plenty of love and attention; they get fed well and looked after by vets quite regular.

• Blackpool Coastal Housing failed to ask if we planned on getting any more cats, or any other cats when one or all of our current cats pass away. To clarify, we do not wish to have any more animals of any sort once our current pets pass away. We simply wish to look after the ones we currently have, and be left alone to do so.

• Blackpool Coastal Housing failed to recognise that as far as we are concerned, we had permissions, these permissions were Implied Terms. We took these Implied Terms as good faith and out of respect for the Council at the time.

• Blackpool Coastal Housing failed to inform or negotiate any sort of rules regarding pets or animals, at any time during our entire tenancy at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

• Blackpool Coastal Housing along with social services deliberately forced my partner to sign the new tenancy agreement, without reading it or understanding it. As far as we are concerned, our old tenancy rules, including the new ones and the Implied Terms carried over to the new tenancy, and so this was agreed, that's the only reason my partner signed. Had we been aware of the impeding and ridiculous dispute, we would not have signed any agreement. This is a clear breach of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, in which we enclose for your guidance.

6. We do not accept the poor excuse of “ it's a shared entrance” to justify your rules. This is quite frankly ridiculous and we think made up on the spot. Our cats do not go outside our door, let alone into the communal area, so there no feasible way they use the shared entrance.

7. We also do not accept the excuse “it's too small” in regards to our property size and the amount of space a cat needs. Since we have had all 4 cats, there have been no problems with space for them to exercise and play. We are also looking into the legal requirements that a cat needs, so we request an adequate time to find such information.

8. Overall, we are very disgusted with Blackpool coastal housing and it's responses and how it's dealing with this issue, which in our eyes, and that of many other people, is quite frankly ridiculous and pathetic. We are considering moving home away from Blackpool coastal Housing, and Blackpool entirely.

9. The intolerable and unnecessary amount of stress, anger and upset this dispute is causing is beyond measure and having a detrimental effect on both our health and relationship. We are pretty sure Blackpool coastal Housing do not wish their tenants, in any area they have, to live in a miserable and unhappy home. By removing or re homing any of our cats, Blackpool coastal Housing is making our life a misery and difficult.

10. We have also set up a blog and on Facebook to ask the general public their opinions and thoughts. We have also contacted our local MP, and most national newspapers and TV channels. We want to get as many thoughts as possible.

Finally, I enclose the exact story, and up to date events that led up to this dispute, in an effort to show you and others where it all could have went wrong. The following has also been published to my blog at http://morethanyourjobsworth.blogspot.com and available at Facebook.

Blog post here http://morethanyourjobsworth.blogspot.com/2011/01/eviction-for-having-four-cats.html