Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service, 1. Could you please provide me with the recusal policy about a judge? When there is a complaint against him to JCIO, what is the recusal policy of the judge?> Can he sit for another hearing and victimise the complainants? 2. what information you hold towards judges who pervert the course of justice by misuse of their judicial discretions by preventing issue of transcript of judgment? 3. What is your policy in relation to note of judgment provided by litigants in person (professionally qualified people)? What policy you hold to refuse litigants in person note of judgment? Is there a differential treatment between solicitors note of judgment and that of litigants in person? Please see below note of judgment taken by litigant in person: Permission Hearing File Note Case: Natha & Others v Ismail & Others Court Reference: A02BO347 Court: COURT 53 Central London County Court Judge: HHJ Alan Saggerson Claimant Counsel: Ms Shruti Sharma Defence Counsel: Litigants in Person Date: 14th November 2014 JUDGMENT HHJ SAGGERSON: This is a Permission to Appeal the order of DJ North. Anybody reading this judgment should refer to the ruling starting about 12.55pm in which I have referred to the documents. It is understood that the Permission to Appeal comes a week after the Application was made to suspend the warrant of eviction on 7th November 2014.... I understand that an out of hour application was made to stay the warrant of eviction which was due to take place on 10 November 2014. I understand that there was no eviction. The reason I mentioned it...., After Mrs Ismail’s clear and coherent argument on behalf of her family and the documents I referred to earlier this morning, the issues on this difficult case are now much clearer. Mrs Ismail was clear in her argument. Mr Ismail is mentally unwell and has episodes of mental illness which may explain why the issues were unidentified on Friday 7th November 2014. There are also large number of criticisms made about court’s officials and judges and how this claim has been dealt with. This Application for Permission to Appeal’s background is that the 3 members of the Natha family are the owners of the property where the defendants have been living (47b Colchester Avenue E12 5LF). On 11 September 2014, an order for possession was made by District Judge North indicating that the order was “a forthwith possession order against the defendants. Mr and Mrs. Ismail sought permission to appeal. Mrs Ismail has been a teacher in London for considerable number of years since her husband claimed asylum. The family faced various difficulties and disadvantages. The family did not have accommodation available for them by The London Borough of Newham. The family has extraordinary and difficult housing issues. But the circumstance in this appeal is that the defendant came to live in 47b Colchester Avenue and the landlords are jointly owners of the house. There was an agreement with Newham Council whereby they agreed with the local authority to house those in need of accommodation or asylum seekers. In other words, Newham was endeavouring to comply with its statutory obligations at providing housing where there is a stock available as the local authority’s housing stock is insufficient. These are emergency arrangements made with private landlords to allow those properties to be used. This is an important process as the Defendant would be street homeless. But it has to be understood that the claim has been brought by Natha family. This is not a Local Authority claim. The Natha family are mere licences and the defendants are on sufferance because the owners allow them to be there while Newham find alternative accommodation. Licence can be brought to an end. Once this happens (whether or not London Borough of Newham continues the agreement), the landlord have withdrawn their consent. This property therefore (despite having Newham’s permission to use 47b Colchester Avenue) comes to an end also. There is no tenancy agreement. Unfortunately, the notice to quit dated 26 March 2014 which Mrs. Ismail has received cannot be considered. When DJ North made a possession order, he had no option but to make it on mandatory grounds. No discretion or permission to live in the property... This is not a case of Local Authority. It is not a private or periodic tenancy, it is a mere licence which has been terminated. The District Judge was correct. The statutory protection is not engaged. Private landlords do not apply. Accordingly, consideration of statutory periods of Notice To Quit and protection etc and other protection do not apply. Mrs Ismail recognises and she says that private landlords are entitled. The submissions of Mrs. Ismail really relate to the vulnerability of this family and their housing predicament. Where London Borough of Newham owes statutory duties to carry out comprehensive assessments of children in need, Mr Ismail’s health and circumstances he finds himself in this country, as vulnerable individuals. The submissions may be well-founded against London Borough of Newham but not against Natha family in this action. In oral and written submissions, reference to Article 8 ECHR was made. But in the housing context, there is no doubt that it is of fundamental importance. Proportionality applies. But it is quite clear to me that the defendants in this case have proceeded on the basis that Natha family should be held responsible. They have misunderstood the fact that the owner of the property are mere licencees. They were only allowed to be in occupation to allow Newham to use this house by licence. If Newham don not have access to this sort of accommodation, there will be a great shortage of housing. Irrespective of those duties which London Borough of Newham may have towards this family (both in housing context and other issues), their statutory duties are engaged. Article 8 ECHR applies to a public body. In Mr and Mrs Ismail’s case, Article 8 ECHR is not engaged against private house holders, who have given a licence only to use the property. They are not public bodies such that they attract ECHR. It seems to be plain what has been happening. Those advising them have proceeded on the assumption that it is a Local Authority’s case. There may be other remedies against Newham council, Treasury Solicitors, the Home Office etc to whom supplications have been made. None of these arguments however viable they may be apply to this case. The owner may have his house back. On 11 September 2014, the possession order was made on mandatory grounds, This is why DJ North refused. It is argued that DJ North committed errors of law and has misconducted. Such are utterly unarguable. He applied correct principles considering the arrangement with London Borough of Newham. It is a lengthy and extensive process and the District Judge investigated the facts of the claimants only. Complaints made against him about bias or other grounds are unsustainable. It seems to me that any appeal of DJ North order fails. There is no error of law and no compelling reason in law why an appeal should be heard. Mr and Mrs. Ismail may find my decision disappointing. They must take application for housing to the Local Authority. There is nothing I can have the power to pursue this. Permission to Appeal is refused as there is no prospect of success. The application is misconceived and wholly without merits. There is no appeal of my refusal. Draft taken BY: Mrs N Ismail Waiting: 5 Hours Circumstances: HHJ Saggerson conducted a hearing on 6/11/2014. He bullied and victimised LIP. A complaint was made against him to JCIO on the same day. He continued to obstruct the course of justice by using his discretion and heard the case against on 14/11/2014 where he tried to victimise, bully and humiliate. he provided untrue statement in open court. He refused to approve the transcript note despite Local MP requested him to do so. The court also refused to abide to Parliamentary request. 4. what is your policy in relation to your correspondences to Member of Parliament and abide to their requests to assist constituents? Yours faithfully, ismail
Posted on: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:45:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015