MP and Cllrs copied into the 9 month Corporate terrorising of Community -
(£3000 Court costs now awarded against resident Beneficiary (of no business use restriction) to the Home Director who evades Section 84 and provided false information to obtain a Certificate).
A Business strategy to breach the Covenant for equity through evasion of the UT Jurisdiction. All watched by Authority in real time. A community and restrictions just laughed at and the 1925 Law of Property Act evaded and eroded.
We knew from the Start that Authority would be prepared to undermine the 1925 Law of Property Act and favour allowing the Private Profit Care Sector to run rampant into residential Communities without any regard for residential restrictions (no business use not just dweliinghouse that a Certificate of LU is engineered to set aside).
There is an arrogance in Authority that rights can be snuffed out for Corporation profit that is hard to comprehend.
Due process , honesty and basic right and wrong did not get a look in on New Lane.
The whole process to undermine property Law has been engineered and this is what the innocent Beneficiary has had to face in this investigation. Both Houses of our Parliament representatives watched from the beginning to the end where the system awarded costs of £3000 against the victim of a Covenant breach trying to get the dispute causing party to the Land Registry.
What planet of causation are the Courts and Barrister's on to reverse Justice in this way?
How can such source action not be deemed as causation and true unreasonable behaviour?
But that is what they are all willing to do to inncocent residents attempting to enforce Legal rights.
The Govt. in May 2023 had only stated in Guidance that planning should not be a barrier to private profit Care Homes.
Lately new Govt. just bemoans the costs of the policy and offers platitudes around curbing huge costs. The CMA however states is is powerless due to Councils pulling out of supply with full outsourcing no matter the huge cost.
£5000 per week per child is becoming the norm and £42000 profit per child (per annum) leaks out of Care to Corporations.
At no time has the Government stated that the 1925 Law of property Act should be evaded and it remains unaltered by Parliament. This is to be a hidden erosion of Property Rights. A stealth (C2 Certificate attack) done in silos across England.
C4 is the danger of becoming the next Certificate attack.
The disrespect of Democracy is massive and Authority thinks it can just sideline Local people through the Town and Country Planning Act.
Communities downgraded from OBJECTOR TO MERE COMMENTER by Certificate of Lawful Use (permitted Development). A Certificate Application and grant process that Lichfield feel empowered to not even Publish. Certificates granted regardless of relationship to the land / freehold.
False information on forms ignored by Kirklees Council and LGO.
Legal disputes and Covenants ignored by Ofsted.
But this is not the end -
A new Court Case for all England to follow on the internet is the end mission. Justice will get a second attempt and then a third until develop now Business fears the Law.
This Govt. petition was rejected (tell me again our Democracy and the Law has not collapsed into Russia style Authoritarianism with several tiers of Justice not two)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719303
Rejected petition
Create Policy and Guidance to respect 'No Business Use' Covenant restrictions
We want Policy so that once notified of proven Covenant Restriction Ofsted Cannot register the C2 Use Class private business / Commerical Care Home. Thus any opening becomes Unlawful and as such the correct path under Section 84 of the 1925 Law of Property Act is followed rather than evaded.
More details
Section 84-the 1925 Law of Property Act is being evaded and undermined by Develop Now Business leveraging the difficulty in Civil Law (CPR) to sue for breach of Covenant at sensible cost and risk. Certificate of Lawful Use path to C2/C4 is damaging Public Trust and Local Democracy function. Currently develop now and open tactics are being used to manufacture Emotive Public Interest Argument when it is already known that Author intended use restrictions are in place to protect Estate Amenity.
This petition was rejected
Why was this petition rejected?
It’s not clear what the petition is asking the UK Government or Parliament to do.
Petitions need to call on the Government or Parliament to take a specific action.
We're not sure exactly what you'd like the Government or Parliament to do.
You could start a new petition explaining clearly what you would like the Government or Parliament to do.
We only reject petitions that don’t meet the petition standards.
- Date submitted26 February 2025