Dear Dame,
It is entirely legitimate for a local authority to obtain Counsel's opinion on Thames Water Plc denying liability for the losses RBK&C residents suffered so those residents have an objective opinion as to whether the law provides a remedy to Thames Water's Negligence.
Councillor Rossi's response is typical of a Tory-run council's light-touch approach; carefully husbanding the few thousand pounds that a Barrister's Opinion would cost the Council.
I remember Kensington and Chelsea's light-touch approach to Nicholas Van Hoogstraten's harassment of tenants in the 1980s until those affected by the harassment demonstrated that the Council was empowered by legislation to act.
If Counsel's Opinion indicated that the residents were in a strong position to pursue a claim in Negligence against Thames Water it would put Thames Water under pressure to come to the table to negotiate in good faith; something that I do not believe they are doing at the moment.
In civil litigation, the conduct of the parties to a dispute is taken into account when determining costs.
Thames Water would be running a significant risk if it sticks to its guns of denying liability until legal proceedings were issued.
The Council decided to "carefully husband" its resources and penny-pinch over the Grenfell Tower cladding.
Whilst I am opposed to Labour Party style profligacy, it would be prudent for the Council to change tack over the Thames Water situation and support those who pay the Council Tax.
After all, Council Tax payers help to keep Councillor Campbell in her £60,000 a year and Councillor Rossi and every other stipend drawing Councillor (Labour, Tory and Lib Dem) in the life of luxury to which they are accustomed courtesy of RBKC residents.
Whilst on the subject of Grenfell....there are just two members of what was known as the Cabinet at the time of the Grenfell tragedy. Both are still around in the Leadership Team. They are councillors Campbell(£65k a year) and Weale(£47k a year). The pompous leader at that time was Cockell. Cockell loved to draw parallels between his Cabinet and the national Cabinet. That means an acceptance of collective responsibility. I wonder what view the Inquiry will take in respect of collective responsibility of the Cabinet of that time for TMO?
These Tory politicians do not like situations where they are seen to be supporting a private sector company being sued.
These Tories bleat on about it being for individuals to take legal advice and act on their own agency in the full knowledge that many of the people affected by this situation do not have the resources to take on a utility company.
However, if those affected by Thames Water know that they have a reasonable chance in Court, they would probably be able to band together to take on Thames Water to obtain justice.
We all know that big business is generous to Tory Party Central Office with donations and, I wonder if this is foremost in the minds of some councillors?
Yours pointedly, Dearest Dame
A THAMES WATER VICTIM
I am well aware that the Borough Solicitor's Department does not act for residents in respect of personal claims against anyone; including the mighty Thames Water Plc. At the moment, we have a situation where Thames Water says it has legal opinion which indicates that they are not liable for the situation which has come to pass and, therefore, will not be entertaining claims form anyone who has suffered losses. It is not unusual for powerful organisations and their insurers to take this type of stance knowing full well that an inequality of resources exists between those who have suffered losses and the might of one of the batallions of industry or commerce. It is not improper or unprecedented for a local authority to obtain legal opinion on this type of issue so that residents have some understanding of where they stand. Any opinion that RBKC might obtain from Counsel on liability might be totally at odds with the line being run by Thames Water. Armed with an objective opinion from a barrister, residents would empowered to argue to the contrary against the might of Thames Water.
ReplyDeleteThis is not the same as the Council's Legal Department acting for residents. The Council would make it clear that Counsel's opinion was being obtained so that residents could decide if they wanted to take their own legal advice and pursue a claim at Law.
This Council with its Kremlin style administration may well be uncomfortable with obtaining a Barrister's opinion so that residents have some idea where they stand with Thames Water. Donations to Tory Party Central Office coffers by big business trumps the little people in Kensington and Chelsea.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing stopping this financially prudent, respect of tuppence ha'penny Council, from providing a small grant to enable a community group to obtain legal advice on this most important issue.
Come on Rossi, and you Dizzie Lizzy, put your thinking caps on.
ReplyDeleteThe Tory Party is in hock to big business and the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteIs the Tory Party in hock to Thames Water plc?
This ghastly Tory Council had no time for the representations that it received regarding the safety of the Grenfell Tower cladding. It did not support the "little people" who knew more about fire safety than the TMO's Black, Maddison and Jevans as well as the penny pinching Tory Councillors who wanted to save a few quid at the expense of human life.
ReplyDeleteIt will be tears before bedtime for Rossi and Bizzy Lizzie over this Water Company.
I only knew about Grenfell troubles before the fire because of the Dames blog which led me to the Grenfell blog.
DeleteThe blog in itself is evidence of abandonment of responsibilities of those in charge in the council.
Councillors are just in it for themselves. Claiming allowances courtesy of the Council Tax payer at every turn with no noticeable results. Tories Campbell, Rossi and Weale all do very nicely. Labour's Emma double dipping on her parliamentary salary and councillor's allowance.
ReplyDeleteDame,
ReplyDeleteIs it not time for a Residents Party?!
Residents throughout the borough are collectively fed up, disappointed and frustrated by the dross of councillors and civil servants. Whether it is planning, filthy pavements, holes in the road, money frittered on useless staff and pet projects & major decision making made without residents' consent.
Residents representing their wards and a party headed by Cllr Henderson could see a change in the Council and our borough.
They could stand only in the Conservative wards to get them to shift their arses
An excellent idea...Ian?
DeleteHenderson and Mackover would be a formidable pair.
DeleteMackover knocks the Tories in to cock hats. Henderson leaves all the marxist leaning socialist dross sitting in the back.
Why are Councillors' expenses not publicly available online?
ReplyDeleteWhy do we residents have to contact the council to look at Councillors' expenses?
Should not these be readily available.
Residents affected by the flood of their homes can get together and sue Thames Water collectively; but would they want well connected residents suing them with a gormless Dizzy Lizzy.
ReplyDeleteEither Thames Water or Suez are to blame, an independent report would show who was responsible, both have to log the work they do within the borough it is was is NOT logged which would show who is culpable, maybe both?!
& Rossi looking on shrugging.
Rossi is being a good Tory. Making sure that the Royal Borough does nothing to affect big business even if that means seeing off residents. When it comes to residents affected by Thames Water she is so laid back that she is almost horizontal.
ReplyDeleteRossi wants a quiet and genteel life. The Council needs to nudge her in the direction of visiting the elderly. She is good at this.
DeleteShe needs to get over a father complex and gathering titles like Chairman of Scrutiny to help her self esteem.
Was Cllr Mona Rossi not also a Mayor of The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea?
DeleteA VIP, no less.
A puffer
DeleteThe Mona Puffer
DeleteCllr The Hon Mona Puffer of Scrutiny
DeleteThere are lessons to be learned from this farce and lessons to be observed by residents.
ReplyDeleteThames Water has been shafting customers for years. The floods were an opportunity for local politicians to unite with residents and fight the enemy. Felicity Buchan MP was quick off the block and called Thames Water to task. This put the nose of the Town Hall out of joint. "Residents belong to us" they cried and wheeled in the thoroughly pedestrian organisation of Rossi and Co to foul things up. And we saw the result. The usual low level performance/outcome from the thoroughly pedestrian RBKC Councillors, their processes and the total absence of Leadership from dizzy.
Hornton Street needs to sort itself out and kick arse. And in the process gain respect from residents.
WASP misses an important point. RBKC residents need a star team in the Town Hall, not a team of stars. In my experience high performance can be obtained from even moderate people if they are marching in the same direction and are properly lead.
DeleteLeadership is the problem in Hornton Street. It is lacking
If that lot in the Town Hall, politicians and officials, fell in to a vat of sh*t, they would come up smelling of roses.
DeleteWith Campbell and Weale laughing all the way to the bank drawing £112, 000 between them.
DeleteWhat is needed is the clout of the MP to be combined with funding from the Council, in the name of residents, to get a legal opinion to pursue Thames Water. It is the only thing that Thames Water will respond to. They do not want the precedent of damages to Kensington residents and have told their PR and legal departments to filibuster.
DeleteHorton Street needs to stop puffing and wasting everyone's time.
Legal opinion could easily be funded if the waste of money on Barry Quirk's "consultations" and "workshops" - a total waste of money, were abandoned.
DeleteThis Council says it's No 1 "value" is communicating. Nonsense of course. It just does barking.
Delete