DaveL mentioned that this note was sent to one household "who could not otherwise be contacted". My question was therefore not why this letter didn't go to more people, but that why do I know of other residents, who are directly affected by the application, but that haven't been contacted by the association by the 'other means'.

Of course the other details wouldn't be disclosed on this forum - but there seems to be no space for such details to appear. And the wording in the letter to me doesn't indicate a personal message.

Gingernuts, perhaps if you were as directly affected by all issues discussed here, as I am, you wouldn't think the posts as "silly."

I seemed to me fairly obvious from what was being said, that not everyone had been contacted. Also it's worth a thought that not everyone is affected by the covenant and therefore would not necessarily need to be contacted. It's only a guess, but sounds logical to me.

DaveL,

Really disappointed with the delays in arranging an SGM, given the need has been obvious through the content of this forum since January at least.

To hide behind the bureaucracy, 'a valid request', when there is a genuine need for a debate, and you are pursuing a questionable action, is very poor form.

Jason,

The email you sent on the evening of 6th February 2012 requesting a special General Meeting of the Association was not valid. I am sure you will understand that the members of the Association would expect the committee to undertake due diligence before spending significant amounts of the Association’s funds on a meeting called by a tiny proportion of the membership. We did, however, offer to talk to any individual members who had any concerns over our actions and have indeed done so.

Whilst performing the necessary due diligence on the names listed in your email (and I should point out that we did not go through every single one of them), we discovered that around 25% of all the people listed had signed a petition generally supporting the nursery, but had not signed a request of a Special General Meeting of the Association, still less a vote of confidence in the Committee. Those we asked had told us that the people who were collecting signatures made no mention at all of the Association. Therefore, as far as I was concerned, some peoples’ names were used for a purpose that they had not given consent for.

We accept that a number of members, including yourself, have now called a meeting in accordance with our Constitution. We are keen to ensure that it will be held at a time convenient for those calling it which is why, as you know, we contacted the lead name on the petition. We could not arrange a meeting without their reply and are now arranging for it to be held as soon as possible within the constraints of the Constitution and the dates offered.

David

After having heard from one person that they thought their name was on the original petiton requesting an SGM by mistake, the Friends of Piplings personally visited or contacted again everyone whos name had appeared on the petition to ensure that no further mistakes had been made. At no point was the petition intended to deceive or anyones name added without the clear understanding.

4 or 5 people of the original 48 told us that, after having been visited by representatives of the residents association, they would now prefer to have their names withdrawn from the petition. This was done on the updated version sent to you.

A number of other people that we did speak to also told us that they were visited by their road rep who was claiming that the petition was 'trying to shut the Residents Association down'. We have clarified that this was never the case on this forum and to those that we have spoken to individually.

We disasgree that around 25% of the names were added to the petition without authority.

This meeting is intended to provide some clarification as to why the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents Association have over 15 months used funds, researched covenants and then initiated and continued to fully support legal action against a family living in the community, threatening their livelihood and the closure of an outstanding Children's Nursery.

David, your response doesnt make clear why the TLRA continued its active support in respect of opposing the covenant modification in the light of considerable neighbourhood disquiet about what was going on. I would have thought it would have been the fair and reasonable thing not to have proceeded with this rustling up of support against Piplings and scaremongering until the meeting had taken place. So far it does not appear that the TLRA has had a clear mandate to take this action, in fact exactly the opposite position is suggested.

Its clear to me and perhaps to others that these are delaying tactics using every available excuse to delay the meeting until the key actions in respect of the covenant have been put into place. Once that is done the position and the arguments of Piplings supporters has been weakened. Not decimated completely, just weakened.If you think this isnt transparent to many of us then you must think people are stupid. But then thats probably the case anyway.

I have known TLRA meetings to be arranged at considerable haste when a planning application needs opposing. Clearly not in this case.

The letter sent by TLERA is shocking, whether the intended recipient is one or many this indicates that the TLERA are operating a Dictatorship with no regard as to the wishes of the majority of their members nor the objectives of their own constitution - http://www.tewkesburylodge.org.uk/agm.htm it is in my opinion disgraceful behaviour.

DaveL stated of allowing Piplings to remain open "This would clearly be detrimental to all of the Estate’s residents." Now it is clear that all the Estate's residents don't agree with this statement, DaveL and his cronies fight on regardless and postpone the ability of the estate residents to voice their opinions.

Who would've believed it Forest Hill really does have it's very own Dictatorship.

As members you do have the right to appoint a Committee of your choosing through elections and to decide priorities and an approach which can be enshrined in the constitution. If members are not happy there are routes to follow, provided of course all such avenues are not blocked.

It is hard to get rid of people therefore if they have become rooted in the role and have managed to dismantle the opposition and the route for that opposition to make its voice known. I am not sure if that's been the case here but its clear to me that this has become a truly unpleasant state of affairs without seemingly any accountability to the members or even lipservice to same. The Piplings issue now seems to be taking a back seat to some ghastly community politics.

http://www.mercury-today.co.uk/news.cfm?...s%20future

The above article states that Rowena Bennett, secretary of the TLRA says that the TLRA are not funding the legal action nor are they party to it. How does that statement sit then with the letter which we have seen published here pitching neighbour against neighbour and clearly being extremely 'party' to that action!

DaveL says "It should also be noted that the letter that Jason has posted was only delivered to one household who could otherwise not be contacted."
Then what was the purpose of the letter?
It was on TLERA headed notepaper.
It was signed by a member of the executive.
If it wasn't distributed, what was it for?

http://4liberty.org.uk/2012/02/08/becaus...o-you-too/

Just found the link to this website and to a pretty unpleasantly- toned blog on Piplings by someone called 'JuliaM'. The tone of the entire site is pretty right wing and lacks sound argument. Make up your own minds!

Perhaps Piplings can answer why certain of their neighbours, maybe those with the benefit of a restrictive covenant, might need advice on decisions they have been asked to make?
If these neighbours requested information from TLRA about what these options mean shouldn't TLRA give it to them (or do TLRA need to poll all the residents on the estate before they do anything based on the one person one vote rule?)
I think the note is relatively factual letting people know what the options are. If you imply a bias by TLRA in that it states a precedent will be set then I agree this case will be judged on its merits but "courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedents which record how and why prior cases have been decided" (Wikipedia). If this is the same for the Lands Tribunal then it will set a precedent

Roz,

Loved your link. The blog claims:

"We are differing voices who come together under one banner – that of liberty.

We are political and apolitical – some belong to parties, some do not. Some are self-professed libertarians, some are small “c” conservatives, some classical liberals – the names are varied. However we all have one thing in common, a love of personal liberty; that casualty of the encroaching state as it seeks to micromanage our lives."

And yet JuliaM rant is entitled "The Rules Apply To You Too!" and supports the use of petty legal technicalities to close down a nursery. Hilariously hypocritical!

1 letter delivered? Really?? Then why do we have 29 identikit objections derived from that form?

.............

The LC application was a completely natural option to take given TLERA's organised 2 years of objections to the nursery and our TLERA encouraged neighbour's insistence on pursuing expensive-to-us litigation.

Such an application requires that all neighbours are informed of the application and 40 residents in Liphook Crescent and Ringmore Rise were therefore delivered a letter informing them of my application.

Hot on the heels of our deliveries came a letter from TLERA advising residents not to respond and that TLERA were seeking advice and would let them know shortly what they should, in effect, do.


  2012 01 23 - TLERA first LC letter to residents.pdf (Size: 116.78 KB / Downloads: 608)

The 2nd scare-mongering communication from TLERA was circulated, with an attached form (posted earlier on this forum), suggesting that the residents should let the F's solicitors do their talking and they should just tick a few boxes and sign the form, the F*'s solicitor would then handle creating their objection for them AT NO CHARGE TO THEM.

I say scaremongering because the letter claimed that we were trying to change EVERYONE's restrictive covenants (incorrect!) and also that if they objected on their own they could incur legal costs. (Valerie directly and verbally confirmed this to 2 neighbours who are supporters of the nursery who went to talk to her, complaining that they had mysteriously been missed out of TLERA's 2nd communication - almost certainly because they were supporters of the Nursery)

The TLERA form tickboxes were then converted into pre-created paragraphs (some dubious assumptions were made converting simple tickboxed sentences into fullblown and elaborate objections) which the solicitor TGBaynes duly delivered back to us - 29 objections from neighbours all on identical forms all containing paragraphs triggered by the nieghbours' tickboxes and, occasionally, an extra para from the neighbour complaining of, often,the usual invented issues of e.g. litter, or people smoking in public.

Have I got this right.. The TLERA Committee found the covenant, found the lawyer, found the neighbour that could enforce the covenant and matched the lawyer and the neighbour.

As the lawyer is representing the neighbour on a no win no fee basis, presumably if the neighbour dropped the case they would have to pay the lawyer as the lawyer would have no avenue to get their fees. The neighbour doesn't want to pay. Either way if the case is dropped one half of the couple that the TLERA Committee matched would be out of pocket. How inconvenient and embarrassing that would be, for TLERA who masterminded the case. Dare I say that the TLERA Committee battle on, not because of inconvenience, not because of the covenant, not for the good of the community but because of the Financial implications of dropping the case.

Good point.

Presumably with no win no fee you cannot drop a case!

Whatever happens, the lawyers always win. Too late now of course, but what a pity that TLERA didn't start by bringing the parties together to seek a modus vivendi.

Of course you can - if it becomes clear that your case is not a good one, it makes far more sense to discontinue than to plough on to trial when the costs consequences will be even worse if you lose becasue the costs will have risen exponentially by then - going to trial can be a very expensive business, even if you're the winner - it's one of the reasons only 1% of cases in this country go all the way to a full trial.

And I honestly can't see any costs consequences for the TLERA - it is not a party to the legal proceedings and so no costs order can be made against it, nor is it liable for the objectors' legal costs as it won't be TG Baines' client. It may well be supporting the objectors but that doesn't it make it liable for costs.

Digressing slightly - the whole point of a CFA (what you call no win no fee) is that you won't get one unless the solicitor thinks you have pretty good prospects of success.

AMFM,

I'm not saying there will be any cost to TLERA in dropping the case, the cost would be to the Lawyer who wouldn't recoup there fees or the client who would presumably have to pay for work done to date. This would, I imagine be a source of embarrassment to the TLERA committee who matched the lawyer and client and encouraged the case.

They may well have a good legal case, but is that what this is about now? It's not about inconvenience caused to residents or the morality of breaking the covenant but about the fact that the lawyers and the neighbours don't want to be out of pocket.

Usual question:

Who is going to pay?