long- story-short.
i have inhabited the property i live in for over 30 years.
my original agreement was with the borough council.[signed]

1990.the housing association sent all muppets a new agreement to
sign[i failed. ]

they allege i have an agreement with them,because the gobbermint has made
me liable via the housing act..[circa-whatfuckingever]


cuntology has been conspicuous in its absence.

That is until several weeks ago.

When an inspector called..[will elaborate later]
i did not approve of his words or actions.

this has culminated in my removing their right of access.
removing the person[name] from the equation,and notifying their legal
dept of impending documents/notices..

their cunning plan

they want a meeting at my dwelling to discuss the improvements i have made
the idea being i remove them at my expense.[i guess].

THE INSPECTOR

entered the property on a pretense.

ie.i was notified that the visit would be made to inspect a repair.

so obviously i allowed him entry.

however upon entering the room he immediately started taking photo's
making spurious statements,and generally pissing me off.

my intention.

they may enter the property under MY TERMS AND CONDITIONS

i intend to accomplish this via lawful documents.

any thoughts will be most appreciated.

chris/pitano1

Hi Chris;
Double check your tenancy agreement You may be surprised at what you find.
Don't worry about denied right of access: It may be their house but its your home! Also check which Housing Act you singed a tenancy for. My guess would be the !988 Housing Act.

I think the 'new' contract would have made a newer housing act your binding agreement. As for the photo's? Did they ask permission before they invaded your privacy? Is this the first inspection in 30 years? If not then how come they haven't objected to your improvements before now?

I'd say that taking the photos was a trespass. As you may know trespass is about possession and not ownership.
Cassandra

many thanks for replies.

mike.
asked for proof of contract.

it arrived addressed to the peaceful inhabitant,and then chris slave title..ie surname.

it did contain documented proof of my contract with the district council which later
morphed into the borough council.



[sic]
-in 1998 the council entered into a formal process as required by s103 of the housing act [the housing act 1985]
to vary the tenancy conditions of all of its existing tenants and implementing new conditions of tenancy.
the new conditions were adopted with effect from 5th January 1999.

i enclose a copy of those new conditions of tenancy and the draft committee report.
you were among a small number who did not return a signed agreement.
these are the conditions that you are still bound by.

regarding photo's
no permission was requested.

this guy visits twice a year.
in fact he is ok.

this is what he had to say on the matter.
it seems that any tradesmen that enter your property are also spies.
[beware of the younger generation]

he confirmed he had visited many times over the years but did not consider it
business to rush back to H.Q to have his ego stroked for grassing.

he also told me who the informant is.[younger generation]

cassandra
thank you for reminder.

Hi piano

Not having any experience i have nothing to offer. If it were me though first thing i would do is try to unpick every document or contract with the Glossa info. Actually, that's not true - i'd do same as you and post here first. Can't beat first-hand knowledge.

Good luck!

Cheers!

Hi Pitano,

My two pennies. I've never tried the following but the theory is sound.
As Chris SURNAME you are a government employee. As a corporate employee you have the right to strike. When on strike a person is in a kind of limbo, being neither employed or unemployed. Write to your council and declare that you are on strike. That you will receive (accept) correspondence addressed to you in your governmental role, but are under no obligation to abide by the corporate rules until the dispute is resolved.
This puts the ball in their court. They can attempt to resolve the dispute or they can sack you. I will be the most suprised man on the planet if they give you the sack, for numerous reasons that I won't go into here and I'm sure you can guess most, if not all, of them youself.
They must respect your right to strike as your rights are your PROPERTY. Protection of property is the primary reason for the existance of government. Tell them all this - you'll confuse the hell out of them and there will no doubt be a long delay while they consult their lawyers. Oh, and make sure you tell them that any attempt to force you to play the roll while you are on strike will be deemed by you to be attempted enslavement and a trespass on your PROPERTY.
They may say you are not an employee, in which case you ask them on what grounds they claim jurisdiciton over you.
They may say they have a contract which grants jurisdiction. If they do ask for a copy. Sounds like the only one you have signed is 30 years old... the "new" contract is not a contract at all. It is a change to the rules and is entirely dependant on your willingness to consent to it by playing the role of a government employee.

Sounds like fun. I wish I was in a position to do it myself!

Hi piano

Well, if we're getting creative i'll add a brush stroke.

Are you in lawful rebellion? Remember, your contract was with the borough council - the Crown? If they want to do anything you can refuse them with impunity in the context of causing distress and distraint to the Crown. And just to harp on about my latest obsession - de-Glossa that document. De-Glossa all documents and challenge authenticity, and whatever else comes to mind.

Cheers!

thanks for both replies.
dread.... i think that could be one option.

lamani.
i"am an anarchist.

anywhoo,its time for some entertainment.
please read from bottom up.
caveat.
the following "could cause permanent brain misfunction"
see if you can spot the offer.
redacted copy of email.

TM.683 - Access required at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
for the purposes of inspection
From: Sheryl
To: awkward fucker
CC:
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:20
Afternoon Chris



Thank you for your reply and I hope I can answer your questions. You may not remember but we have had dealings with each other in 2009 so it is nice to correspond with you again.



In certain circumstances where legislation applies one party can legally bind another party without their consent. This is what occurred when the Borough Council implemented their new tenancy conditions on 5 January 1999. The legislation covering them was section 103 of the Housing Act 1985. They were lawfully allowed to do this having following the correct process at that time. All the Borough Council tenants were then subject to those tenancy conditions, which I sent you a copy.



Whenxxxx took over from the Council part of our process was to change to our new xxxx tenancies and bringing all the conditions bang up to date, and making things much simpler and easier to read and understand. [for the simple minded.?]

The one sent out to you was a xxxxxx Transferring Tenancy Agreement.



xxxxxx being a Registered Housing Provider has different legislation covering our tenancies. The main legislation for Assured tenancies is the Housing Act 1998. Under that Act there is no provision for bringing in new conditions without the consent of the tenant.



This means as did not return a signed new agreement, you are bound under the terms and conditions of the Borough Council. So where it reads Council you now read xxxxx instead as your landlord on that agreement, until such time you decide to accept the newxxxxxxx Agreement or the tenancy ends.



Inspection

With the issue of the works that have been started by you, we need to come and survey what has been done and how it affects our property as your landlord. We can then start discussions on how we proceed further.



I really hope that you agree an appointment to take place within the 10 days. and allow our Surveyor; Paul and Kelly + Tenancy Advisor access. The tenancy agreement and legislation overs us for requiring inspections. If you would like, I can attend with them also if my calendar appointments permits.



Look forward to your reply and to resolving these issues.



Best Regards Sheryl

Trainee Legal Executive, ACILex

Legal Services Department

Direct Line

Email Sheryl.



CC: Surveying Manager

CC: Tenancy Advisor

[copy and paste,errors made original author]

From: chris [mailto:+
Sent: 19 January 2017 14:02

Subject: Re: attention of the legal dept./ alarm and distress



hi. kelly./sheryl
thank you for sending the letter dated-17/1/2017-the contents of which are noted.

you state.

you were among a small number who did not return a signed agreement-[sic]

so....if this offer to sign an agreement is not necessary.

why were they sent out to every tennant.?

question for sheryl.[legal advisor]

can one entity bind another without their consent.?

kind regards.
chris.

All Rights Reserved.





This e-mail (including any attachments), is confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee(s). It may contain information covered by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Do not copy, use or disclose this e-mail.

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard copy version.

Hi pitano1

Any updates? Had a few thoughts on your situation that might be useful.

It may have occurred to you that if they're bothering you after all this time there's a possibility they have plans for the property (which legally can't be termed as 'their property') that don't include you and you are being 'managed out'.

If you haven't already done so you need to dispense with the emails and demand all further correspondence be in writing (do not insist on wet-ink signature at this point) as you will be retaining it as evidence in the performance of your 'due diligence'. Remind them that you insist you be addressed as (insert freedom name here) with a lawfully-compliant (ie windowless) envelope, and to address you as (freedom name) at all times on the letter within such.

Point out that although you wouldn't object to being a beneficiary of an estate held in trust by a competent authority you are absolutely certain that you have never knowingly consented and would never consent to being a Trustee. You are not a Trustee and refuse to be seen/treated as such - whether it's of the Crown or any other perceived authority. Neither are you in any sense an agent or employee or custodian or curator etc. of Crown or state or any other perceived authority and you hereby revoke any perceived consent to be seen or treated as such. Above all, you are NOT to be be seen or treated as a 'person'.

In my opinion you will have now 'noticed' T.H.E.M. of your 'manhood' and established a common-law jurisdiction. Legislation no longer applies as you are now dealing with a common-law contract.

i may have some more if you're interested.

Cheers!

hi lamani.
thank you for your kind thoughts and offer
of assistance.

yes there are updates.

to be honest this matter has kinda rattled me.

I have not been sleeping or eating properly.

in fact i tried to resolve the matter yesterday.

I called into their offices,and offered to have a chat.....IN PRIVATE.
to which all parties agreed..
me.....a solicitor...and a property enforcement officer...or to
put it another way.....me and a pair of......CUNTS.

Because...as soon as we entered a private room....the fucking solicitor started writing shit down.

I'm going to give them a taste of their own medicine.

via MY VERY....[in part] non lawful approach...CUNNING PLAN.

WILL...give full update later.
[sic]i may have some more if you're interested.
yes please.
chris.