RSS

Tag Archives: justices

How The Zest Was Won…Back!

Since receiving the ECHR knock-back, family and I have been swinging back and forth between feeling defeated and depressed and positively determined! The former emotions have far outweighed the latter, I have to confess. Never mind a river, I think we have cried an ocean of tears between the four of us!

Each time we read back through the various Courts’ decisions, we find another anomaly that just should not be there. There are a couple of good examples to follow –

In the Riom Cour d’Appel judgement:

The justices declared that we had not submitted any written evidence of our need for sole use of the garage in order for a disabled persons’ lift to be installed. Monsieur C had stated (in his Attestation to the Appeal Court) that the garage was “mon garage” and he had sole use of it in accordance with his rental contract with our sellers. The justices also declared that the Plannings, produced by our architect, Monsieur G, were signed and dated July 2007, ie ‘far too late for the notaire, the sellers and the Immo to consider before completion of the sale/purchase processes’.

I’ll break that down and clarify a few points.

The justices declared that they “recognised the sellers’ fraud”. Right, then, that’s clear enough.

The justices did not acknowledge that we had not even been aware of Monsieur C and his rental contract, pre-purchase, even though Monsieur C confirmed the facts in his Attestation to the Appeal Court and the justices declared that they accepted those facts!

The justices made no mention of the original Plannings that include detailed drawings of the disabled persons’ lift – all copies hand-delivered to the notaire (by the architect), to the Immo (by us) and to the sellers (by the Immo) – signed and dated 2nd April 2007, not July 2007, ie before we even signed the Compromis de Vente!  

The justices made no mention of the copy medical documents and the EU Blue Disabled badge submitted by us as evidence!

Doesn’t it pong just a little?  

Our first avocat requested copies of all documents relevant to the property purchase. He also required the original property Deeds for ‘the property returning processes to be administered swiftly after the Judgement’, he was adamant the justices’ decision would be in our favour.

Despite telephone calls and emails from us (in January, February and March 2013), our third avocat has still not returned our file to us, including the original property Deeds!

But, never mind, the current notaire’s assistant told us that is not an insurmountable problem. We’re not so sure.

The current notaire has called for copies of all Monsieur G’s Plannings documents, including the DDT, etc. She is not able to give Monsieur C his marching orders via expiry of tenancy lease, but, she can and will send him packing when she writes to inform him that the entire property is being returned to single home status!

Wow! We didn’t know that could be done! But, obviously, our first notaire would have known it could be done in 2007!

The current notaire will apparently be handling it personally and she will be sending the legally binding formal Notifications via the people who originally placed Monsieur C in the property, the Social Services. The latter agency apparently has a duty of care to re-home Monsieur C. The notaire is a Government Agent of ‘she who must be obeyed’ status!

In the meantime, the current notaire and the European Ombudsman are in total agreement – we must now direct three separate complaints, in writing, to the ‘overseeing bodies’ for notaires, avocats and Immobiliers. The grounds, in each case, are incompetence and unprofessional conduct, we have been strongly advised to demand compensation. We have also been provided with the relevant names and addresses of the overseeing bodies.

So, that’s my job for tomorrow. No peace for the wicked!

More to come – a warning for the folks who rent out their properties in Saujon (in the Charente-Maritime) and in Poitiers (in the Poitou-Charente)! It appears that Monsieur C will probably be moving to a rental property near one of you! Er…forewarned is forearmed if you have an empty rental property at this moment! He has already checked out Saujon and he likes what he saw; he will be conducting a recce in Poitiers at some point during August!

Wink! Just thought I would let you know!

It’s now looking possible that our current notaire will not need to give Monsieur C the Order of The Boot! Although Monsieur C was seemingly quite determined to remain in our pile for eternity, when we first arrived on Sunday 7 July, he appeared to have changed his mind by Tuesday 16 July!

But, we’re not leaving anything to chance or trust – we feel that taking a chance on the locataire doing as he says he will do would be a fool’s game, and we don’t trust him as far as we can spit as individuals! We still do not have a copy of Monsieur C’s rental contract. ‘Owzat?

Also to come – how Tom and I met up with (after a number of aborted attempts!) delightful Tottie Limejuice (of the brilliant “Sell the Pig” book fame, here’s a link, Control+click to access)

http://www.amazon.com/Sell-Pig-Tottie-Limejuice/dp/1480274917?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

in company with her lovely friend, Gill (or Jill, I didn’t ask, d’oh!), in the panoramic, awesome Cantal volcanoes country! Oh boy, you have to drive over (using the bridges, of course!) and around those sheer precipices and spectacular craters to fully appreciate the beauty – and the fear!

Advertisements
 
12 Comments

Posted by on July 20, 2013 in World

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

24/7 Is Just Not Long Enough…!

Are you retired and wonder how the heck you ever found the time to work?

Yes? Same here!

No? Hang in there, it will come – all things being equal, naturally!

For this past week – you know, that period of time equal to seven days and seven nights – I had set myself the following tasks to complete:

Locate and decode the EU laws we need for referencing in our formal complaint to the EUJ;

Locate, translate and decode relevant EU laws and Napoleonic Civil Codes, the bundle of joy (not!) we need to quote to the European Ombudsman concerning the ineptitude of two avocats and one notaire;

Format, write, proof read and edit as necessary the two formal complaints. Collate relevant documents and post the two packages;

Format, write, proof read and edit as necessary the content for our ‘large shack for sale’ website;

Locate and save appropriate internet links for our ‘large white elephant for sale’ website;

Travel to the ‘pile’, repack the few boxes we unpacked in July 2007, vanquish the tarantulas, hornets and no end of other creepy-crawlies that never fail to arrive to occupy the (many) unused rooms between our infrequent visits. Clean the property throughout – but not Monsieur C’s hallowed areas, ie his apartment, ‘Mon Garage’, etc;

Sort out half a dozen Immobilières (estate agents), including those who have been recommended to us by friends, and arrange for Monsieur G, a super gentleman expert who we know is on the ball and honest, to visit the ‘pile’ and collate all the information required for the Dossier de Diagnostic Technique (DDT report, including the all-important Energy rating, ie the statutory survey required before we can even put the property on the market);

Travel back to the Haute-Vienne to relieve son of childcare responsibilities so that he (son, not grandson) and Tom can return to the ‘pile’, decorate and take several dozen photographs for our ‘large carbuncle on the derriere’ website;

Enjoy myself on the forum, Facebook and Twitter, thereby, maintaining contact with family and friends around the globe.

Sigh – this blog post will be published with my red face expressing my sincere apologies for neglecting my family and friends during the past week.

However, there is an up-side, having tossed and turned during the past seven long nights – my brain just would not switch off – just before 5am today, I remembered we still have our copy of the survey and DDT/Energy reports that were carried out in April 2007 at our request and for which we paid 400€, I think the cost might now be closer to double that amount! The Energy rating was not mandatory at that time, but it was included. Therefore, apart from the termite report that only has a ‘shelf life’ of six months, the rest of the dossier is possibly still current because it’s less than ten years old.

Now, that could save us a few bob!

To clarify. Our sellers’ mandatory survey was fine, but we wanted our own survey to include a full structural report, results of Plannings enquiries, plus other information that we required if we were to proceed with the purchase, eg confirmation that we could install a lift in the garage to take a wheelchair to the apartment on the first floor of the property.

Monsieur G will know if the 2007 dossier is still legally valid, he carried out our full 2007 survey and also produced the DDT report, Plannings etc, for us to consider before we signed the Compromis de Vente. Monsieur G personally took copies of the survey dossier  to the notaire. The notaire was/is also his wife’s close friend. Monsieur G’s Attestation for the Appeal Court supported our Case by confirming all the necessary information and relevant documentary evidence was provided for the justices to examine.

We find it so strange that the Riom Appeal Court justices decided we had not expressed the need to know whether or not a disabled lift could be installed in the property before we proceeded with the purchase! 

How could that happen?

Obviously, the justices did not read all of our evidence, or, they read it and discarded the lot! Certainly, as our third avocat confirmed to us, by email, just a few days before Christmas 2009, our sellers had not submitted any evidence at all in their own defence. Well, they had not needed to, they were innocent unless proven guilty. The justices’ disregard for the evidence presented by our avoué confirmed their innocence!

So, back to this week’s tasks – what have I actually achieved during the past seven days and seven nights?

Not a lot! But, most of the content for our ‘PITA pile’ website is as ready as it will ever be, although, repacking, cleaning, decorating and photography are yet to be done.

As I must now concentrate on finalising and posting our complaints to the EUJ and the European Ombudsman, my next blog post will be written after we return to the Haute-Vienne from the Cantal. By then, we will have Monsieur C’s answer to our question regarding whether or not he is now prepared to vacate our house that’s not our home!

Hopefully, during our time in the Cantal, I will get my head together – my back-up brain cell is at critical overload level at the moment!

 
2 Comments

Posted by on June 18, 2013 in World

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Stuffed…No Logic!

Included in the parcel of documents that we received from the ECHR, Strasbourg, is a copy of the Riom Appeal Court’s Judgement, dated 17 December 2009.

We had not seen the Judgement prior to receiving our file from the ECHR, as was acknowledged by our (third) avocat during the following email conversation held between us:

Relevant excerpt taken from the email received from the avocat on Tuesday 6 April, 2010 at 18:02:23 –

“You need to provide the tax return, all documents justifying your incomes for 2009, or minimum income and the evidence that the court’s decision has been delivered by bailiff (which actually has not been done).

The solicitor (ie the specialist Cour de Cassation avocat) is asking the legal aid office to give you an additional delay……………”

Excerpt taken from my response to the above, sent on Thursday 8 April, 2010 at 12:42:51 –

“Regarding the tax/income avis, we won’t receive that until later this month! All we have to declare for 2009 is the rent for the locataire and the hairdresser, plus my UK State Pension from October 2009……. (I actually did not receive the latter until later in 2010, due to the DWP losing my documents at least twice!).

When the avis arrives at the house, it will be forwarded to us wherever we are. We will complete and return it. Any tax will then become payable in August 2010. There will be no tax to pay, we do not have enough income to pay tax……..”

Eventually, we managed to send evidence of my pensions, UK State and Government, to the Bureau d’Aide just before the end of May 2010, by which time we had secured a further delay with the Bureau d’Aide until July 2010. We also sent evidence of the locataires’ rent being received by the tax office to pay the property taxes, we refused to accept rent directly from the locataires – following advice given to us by our first avocat.

As always, I have supporting documentary evidence to hand and copies are also included in the file sent to us by the ECHR!

So, there we have it – the Cour de Cassation Bureau d’Aide obviously set us up to fail! As we repeatedly told the Bureau d’Aide (in writing) and our avocat (via emails), we could not produce tax documents that did not exist! However, we did send evidence of our 2009 total global income, such as it was and despite the fact that the Mauriac tax office was actually receiving the rental income that we declared.

It gets better! Well, perhaps that wording isn’t really accurate! But, the following revelation made us smile, ie my menfolk et moi – because it is totally without logic and is typically a product of France!

We definitely won at the Riom Appeal Court! Honestly! We won our claim that the sellers, Monsieur and Madame T, defrauded us when they sold us a property that reeked of vice caché!

According to the Court President’s Judgement, Monsieur and Madame T admitted their guilt. Hang in there and I will reproduce the text with the translation!

But, if we won, how did we lose? Why is ‘the pile’ still hanging around our necks?

Ok, the quick answer is that we didn’t express sufficient concern about being trussed up like turkeys and hung out to bleed until we were bled dry – not until after we discovered we had become bleeding dead turkeys! We didn’t raise questions about the hidden fraud before we discovered the hidden fraud!

Therefore, despite the sellers admitting their guilt to the Appeal Court, we were found guilty of not proving their guilt. Ouch!

‘Owzat?

Here’s that text, reproduced straight from the Riom Appeal Court Judgement documents that I have right next to my Netbook –

<Qu’il y a eu une fraude de leur part pour couvrir le bail à……>

Translation – ‘There was a fraud on their part to cover (hide) the lease…’

<Attendu que les négations des époux T concernant le bail du garage confirment qu’ils ne l’ont jamais indiqué aux acquéreurs….>

Translation – ‘Despite their other denials, the T’s confirmed that they never told the buyers about the lease concerning the garage.’

<Qu’il y a eu un dol de leur part à dissimuler le bail tant à l’agent immobilier qu’aux acquéreurs.>

Translation – ‘There was a fraud on their part to cover (hide) the lease from the buyers and the real estate agent.’

However, here’s where we (apparently) went wrong –

<Qu’aucun élément du dossier ne démontre qu’ils ont attaché une quelconque importance à ces locaux.>

Translation – ‘No evidence on the record shows that they (we) have attached any importance to these areas.’

Mmmmmmmm, we obviously should have had our crystal ball primed to tell us all about the hidden tenants and their hidden Contracts before we purchased the property. Clearly, commencing a vice caché lawsuit within hours of discovering the fraud doesn’t adequately express our horror and anger at being forced to attach importance to the tenants!

There’s a lot more, including the opinion of the Court that the justices did not believe it important that we needed (and our architect attested that we had obtained Planning permission for) the disability lift to be installed in the garage because that was the only location agreed by the Planning Office. What! It was certainly important to us that we avoided having a bundle with the Planning Officer before we had even got our feet under the table of Madame France! However, it’s possible that the justices and the Planning Officer eat at the same restaurants. Just a thought!

It’s not worth me taking this crystal ball back to whence it came, French Customer Services staff don’t generally ‘do’ returns!

 
11 Comments

Posted by on June 13, 2013 in World

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,