SALFORD CITY COUNCIL
Case Studies
We wish to make it clear that we remain in full support and appreciation of our Police Forces and local government agencies. However, when the closing of rank, abuse of power and position means the average member of the public is robbed of both civil and humans rights as basic as; 'Right to respect for private and family life,' then help can often come from a surprising source. This is a case brought by Salford City Council which carried a custodial sentences and a criminal record for the accused.
Result:
Mr. S and Ms. F experienced escalating problems and complaints about the parking of Mr. S's van which was parked in a completely lawful way. Although many residents in the cul de sac parked road-side, Mr. S was singled out for aggressive treatment by a minority, two of whom were a retired school head mistress and her husband who was on the school governors board.
Things escalated with complaints to the Police and Salford Council who attended on numerous occasions only to realise no obstruction was caused or law broken. The complainants then changed tactic to complaining about noise, additional parking matters and Mr. S riding his motor cycle.
Salford Council refused to listen to Mr. S & Ms. F and warned them of legal consequencies should they not cease the Anti Social behaviour. Profile Investigations was asked to look into the matter and very soon realised there was malicious intent by the complainants who were presenting false and exhagerated complaints. Subsequently, Salford Council took the couple to court where prior to entering the court room Salford Councils solicitor, in the precence of our investigator told the couple that if they agreed to stop parking in the legally authorised location, the whole matter would be dropped.
This demand was rejected and the legal proceedings continued to escalate over more than two years during which Mr. S instructed Ben Taylor from Glaisyers solicitors to defend him and his partner in the joint prosecution. Their solicitor expressed his confidence that Salford Council would lose the case. During the same period We advised Mr. S to install discreet CCTV complete with audio outside his home.
Salford Council offered a course of action by way of Mr. S & Ms. F signing an undertaking which is a legal agreement with the court that they will not do any of the things complained about. Their solicitor advised them to sign the undertaking as all complaints save for the legally parked vehicle were false, we advised the couple to refuse any undertaking but their solicitor was convincing and they agreed IF reference to parking was removed.
However, when the amended undertaking was presented, although the reference to parking was removed, an addition was inserted demanding that Mr. S & Ms. F 'will not do anything which might annoy any person.' Although we pointed out this may in fact give cause to refer to the parking complaint as a breach of the undertaking their solicitor disagreed saying parking could not be referred to as it had willingly been removed. Against our advice the couple signed.
Within hours of formally accepting the undertaking in court Salford Council informed the couple they were in breach of the undertaking by parking the vehicle resulting in subsequent annoyance to others.
Salford Council tried to strengthen their case by inviting the three complainants to keep a diary of activity. During the ensuing months the number of alleged breaches grew and grew totalling 34 in all. Salford Council then took the matter back to court seeking to imprison Mr. S for upto 2 years. Mr. S had paid his solicitor in excess of £6,000 throughout this matter and could not pay any more and so had applied for and been awarded legal aid which was accepted by the legal aid board.
Three days prior to the breaches hearing Mr. S's solicitor, Ben Taylor, informed him that he should accept the councils demand and they will drop the case. This was of course rejected and Mr. S was shocked to be informed his solicitor had withdrawn his legal aid due to no confidence that Mr. S. would win. He would however continue representation on a private basis. In full knowledge his of course was not possible as Mr. S had no way of paying, his solicitor withdrew for the case leaving Mr. S stranded just days before the trial.
We advised Mr. S that it was too late to instruct another solicitor and as he probably would not get legal aid due to it being recently concelled, he should represent himself. Mr. S said he did not have the conficence to do that. The situation was desperate and Mr. S asked us to stand for him.
We agreed to this with just days to prepare to take on Salford Council. On the trial day we asked the court for permission to stand as a 'McKensie Friend on behalf of Mr. S. and this was accepted. We stood for two days in conflict with Salford Councils case handler, Barrister, Solicitor & Solicitor assistant.
The parking issue had escalated to thirty Four (34) alleged breaches of the undertaking which were given in evidence. These now ranged from; noise and aggressive behaviour to racial abuse. Video evidence was produced by Salford Council allegedly proving Mr. S parked his car in the middle of the cul de sac turning circle and left it there. We reviewed the evidence which clearly shows Mr. S driving off his driveway into the circle where the vehicle cut out and would not start. Mr. S returned to his property and brought a battery jump start device which he used to start the vehicle engine situated in the boot before driving back onto his driveway. The vehicle was in the turning circle for no longer than two minutes.
Defendant reverses off his driveway and turns car around in turning circle. The car stalls, ( lights off/on.) Defendant goes to his garage for jump start device. Defendant raises boot, ( rear engine vehicle,) and attaches jump start. Defendant starts engine, ( puff of smoke from exhaust.) Defendant removes jump start and reverses vehicle onto driveway.
SALFORD COUNCIL VIDEO EVIDENCE
TOTAL TIME IN CIRCLE: 2 mins 23 secs
A next door neighbour gave a statement alleging that Mr. S sang a song changing the words to offensive content. When we referred to this in cross examination Salford Council objected stating they were no longer offering this as evidence. However, we countered on the basis that we could prove this accusation was false and doing so introduce doubt about the reliability of this witnesses evidence, the court agreed. We presented video evidence from Mr. S's CCTV, complete with audio taken at the alleged time and date. While both Mr. S and the neighbour were clearly seen in their respective gardens, the only audio recorded was a dog barking in the distance and local bird song.
The residing judge stated in summary that his remit was not prove untruths about Salford Councils case but to decide whether Mr. S had breached an agreed undertaking to the court. He found that of the 34 alleged breaches of the undertaking all but one would be dismissed. The judge found that Mr. S had repaired his boundary fence which initiated a complaint which he upheld. However no sanction or punishment was awarded and the fact is; had Mr. S delayed repairing his fence for a day, the undertaking would have expired and at that point this complaint too would have been rejected.
Salford Council declined our request to apologise to Mr. S for the trauma of the three year campaign of hate and continue to declare a successful prosecution, (costing the tax payer in excess of £20,000.
NO OBLIGATION CONSULTATION