What a Farce
Today at 9.15am the Mayor called round to update me on what the solicitors were saying. They had decided that it would not be a good idea to use them to represent any of the people attending court as it may be seen as a conflict of interest acting, as they do, for the council. They did say that, from what they had been told, there would be no need for solicitors at this stage. I was told that the council's solicitor would be there and would try and ensure people were treated fairly.
I got the people together before we went to court and explained how the case should proceed when we got there.
I had arranged to collect an interpreter on the way to court and I briefed him before we got there. He cost 75 euros but I am going to try and get the Town Hall to pay for him. We will see.
On arrival at Court I met with the Council's solicitor, Fran. I asked if the people would be going in one at a time and whether both I and the interpreter I had brought could accompany each party in. He made enquiries and said that it may be possible. During a few discussions between the solicitor and the court officials it soon became apparent that they did not even know that the people attending were not, in general, the persons they wanted to question. There were 8 couples present and I was aware, even before we got there, that most of them were not who the court wanted to talk to but, we had been told they all had to attend, by the Polizia Local.
It transpired that, because the Police were only given a rough sketch map, they did not warn the correct people. It was decided by the judge that he would call each couple in to examine pictures, of the houses they were interested in, and the individuals would have to say whether the houses were theirs or if they know whose they were. Out of the eight householders represented only one lived in the houses pictured. That individual was questioned about her ownership of the house and she gave them as honest answers as she could. At the end of the questioning they put that person under pressure to register an interest in the case. She replied that as far as she was concerned her house was fully legal, that she had her licence of first occupation, building permit etc and could see no good reason at this stage to commence any action. The judge said she could initiate it today but change her mind later. I asked whether the reverse was also true and he agreed and so in the statement, made to the judge, the lady stated that she was not initiating any action at the moment but, after talking with her solicitor and partner, she my do in the future.
All the others signed a statement to the effect that their properties were not one of those featured on the pictures and were not even questioned.
We finally left court about 1.20pm after 2 and a half hours.
Comments
Hi Jim
Sorry to read about your farce today. Are you able to inform the rest of us that might be put into the same position as to what these court cases are all about – why is there a case – is it against individual owners and for what purpose or outcome have they been ‘summoned’, who is starting the cases.
What I find somewhat confusing is that the TH where firstly not aware that these cases where happening, until they checked paperwork, (not a good scenario) yet the Pol’ Local were. Is that Zurgena’s PL or HO PL. If it is our own district PL who is controlling them and was there a particular reason that these houses had been selected?
Depending on what the cases are about, it is a concern also that the majority of the owners that the court wished to speak to were not there. Regardless of the fact that the PL did not address the right people, is there not a document or summons that has to be handle to each owner to inform them of attendance. Just how is this conducted? The issue that I am trying to understand here is whether actions might be taken without the owners knowing only to find out at a later date that they have such action against them (whatever that is). Some of that process happened to the Priors and look where that ended up.
I would very much appreciate if you can enlighten further, as the process taking place could hit many others in future, so to be forearmed will be of great benefit I am sure.
Jim,
It is just as well that in the main the wrong people turned up in court today because I am very concerned to note that you have encouraged people to attend a legal proceeding (which neither you nor they understand) without independent legal advice which would have at least encouraged them to declare an interest in the proceedings. By doing so they will at least be allowed to know what is going on!
Of course the town halls solicitors were not allowed to represent the homeowners. That is indeed a conflict of interest.
The Priors have just won a constitutional court case where it was ruled that they were denied access to justice because they were not informed and therefore excluded from the court proceedings with respect to their home. The courts are now making an effort (if in this case a somewhat incompetent one) to ensure that the homeowner IS advised.
You have effectively allowed at least one homeowner to deny themselves this right.
As you are an elected representative and not simply a spokesperson for the mayor can I suggest that you consult some independent legal advice before advising your constituents to act in a manner that may be prejudicial to their interests.
Regards,
Maura Hillen
AUAN Committee