I noticed that the go fund me campaign is still short by about £5.6k. However, Lambeth’s costs that Sofia is liable for are due on 31/5. They’ve got enough money raised to cover the £10k but she only gets it, if they raise the full amount, £27k. Bit rough that she’s left at the bottom of the creditor list.
Maybe chowce5382 can shed some light?
Oh I’m just going on what Ian Armstrong has said on Nextdoor. If that’s not actually the case, I stand correctedHow do you mean, she only gets it if the ful 27k is raised?
How do you mean, she only gets it if the ful 27k is raised?
The legal costs need to be paid by a certain date. That’s a fact and so, they will be paid. It doesn’t mean that Sofia will be left with the leftover costs as money seems to be coming in. The council could either not demand the 10k (which they won’t do and that is their prerogative) and Sofia would technically have that liability, or the community can pay. At present, the community is paying and there isn’t the hard deadline on the legal costs that there is on the council costs so there is time.Ian Armstrong has said you’re prioritising the Supreme Court action over paying Sofia’s costs so currently haven’t raised that full amount. Is that correct?
The time frames on the two levels of costs are not the same so understand the confusionOh I’m just going on what Ian Armstrong has said on Nextdoor. If that’s not actually the case, I stand corrected
The legal costs need to be paid by a certain date. That’s a fact and so, they will be paid. It doesn’t mean that Sofia will be left with the leftover costs as money seems to be coming in. The council could either not demand the 10k (which they won’t do and that is their prerogative) and Sofia would technically have that liability, or the community can pay. At present, the community is paying and there isn’t the hard deadline on the legal costs that there is on the council costs so there is time.
Simply, if it seems harsh that Sofia is having the pay this, then the council can either not enforce the legal costs on a disabled woman or the community can pay. It’s really in the gift of the council and they have made their decision.
Or even exploiting. Point still stands, they have the option so it’s up to them. In any event, the local community will continue to look after herLoving that you are trying to frame the council as the bad guys exploring the disabled lady.
Alex
Your post certainly makes them sound like the bad guys.Loving that you are trying to frame the council as the bad guys exploring the disabled lady.
Alex
The legal costs need to be paid by a certain date. That’s a fact and so, they will be paid. It doesn’t mean that Sofia will be left with the leftover costs as money seems to be coming in. The council could either not demand the 10k (which they won’t do and that is their prerogative) and Sofia would technically have that liability, or the community can pay. At present, the community is paying and there isn’t the hard deadline on the legal costs that there is on the council costs so there is time.
Simply, if it seems harsh that Sofia is having the pay this, then the council can either not enforce the legal costs on a disabled woman or the community can pay. It’s really in the gift of the council and they have made their decision.
Interesting insight. However you’re wrong on one point, at the end of the day they know full well that Sofia is legally liable so, if costs aren’t met, their only recourse is against her. Interesting that you say that it’s fucking disgraceful behaviour for a council against a resident but then seem to say that it’s fine for them to recover those costs…esp when you look at the 5-6m in fines that have benefited from. Personally I’d take the political route and write it offI once took Lambeth Council to court in an individual capacity and represented myself. Whilst waiting for the hearing their solicitor sought me out in the lobby and started to threaten that if I didn't withdraw my case I'd loose (he already knew apparently) and they would pile their legal costs on top of me and bankrupt me. He kept telling me what an experienced lawyer he was and that he didn't want to crush me but once we were in court the gloves would be off. I walked away several times but he followed me around the room. I suggested several times that he back off and give me some space but he kept on and on. He was so aggressive that my partner was in tears. In the end we walked into chambers, Lambeth asked for the case to be adjourned and offered a settlement in my favour out of court. If I'd not had a legal background and been financially stable I may well have given in - it's fucking disgraceful behaviour for a local council against a resident.
I guess my point is that Lambeth Council likes to bully the little people with financial threats even when they are spurious and they are in the wrong. So it's a bit unrealistic to expect them not to enforce a settlement when they are genuinely entitled to it! (And rightly IMO - they know it is not Sofia's money anyway).
No Ed, we’re meeting the legal costs (to the council) first as these fall first and form part of a court order and so have a fixed time period on when they are due.So you’re paying Sofia’s costs first? Good. Maybe get Ian to correct his statements.
Maybe the council won’t demand the costs but it’s seems fair enough if you guys are raising tens of thousands and the judge has awarded these. Surely you were advised that this was a risk. One could argue that you’ve wasted tens of thousands of council tax payer’s money by bringing the case and appealing it.
No Ed, we’re meeting the legal costs (to the council) first as these fall first and form part of a court order and so have a fixed time period on when they are due.
Lambeth have made it very clear that they will demand the costs and expect them to be paid on the due date and they will avail themselves of every legal right they have to recover those costs directly from Sofia if they are not met (baliffs etc…)
No Ed, we’re meeting the legal costs (to the council) first as these fall first and form part of a court order and so have a fixed time period on when they are due.
Lambeth have made it very clear that they will demand the costs and expect them to be paid on the due date and they will avail themselves of every legal right they have to recover those costs directly from Sofia if they are not met (baliffs etc…)
I was just correcting the view that the council might decide not to enforce the costs orderSo your view is that Lambeth's tax payers ( of whom the overwhelming majority just voted for parties which support LTNs ) should subsidise your hobbyhorse because otherwise you will accuse lambeth of persecuting a disabled lady ?
I think this goes to the misunderstanding that all the money needs to be raised or none of it is raised. There are some gofundme campaigns that work like that but not this one.Why are you saying no when you’ve just confirmed what I said? Glad to hear it anyway. Might want to let Ian know.
Think the council are entitled to persue this, especially when they know the money is there.
It’s really not a hobbyhorse, not for me and certainly not for Sofia. I’m not sure how going through this is fun/enjoyable but your opinion.So your view is that Lambeth's tax payers ( of whom the overwhelming majority just voted for parties which support LTNs ) should subsidise your hobbyhorse because otherwise you will accuse lambeth of persecuting a disabled lady ?
I think this goes to the misunderstanding that all the money needs to be raised or none of it is raised. There are some gofundme campaigns that work like that but not this one.
I was referring to this statement “They’ve got enough money raised to cover the £10k but she only gets it, if they raise the full amount, £27k.” I was just pointing out that some gofundme campaigns only allow you to have the money if you raise the full amount and that this isn’t one of them. That’s the misunderstanding to which I was referring.Only misunderstanding comes from your supporters saying incorrect statements.
Do you know when the money owed is being paid to the council?
There’s some simply glorious meltdowns happening on twitter as a result of this newsStreatham Hill & Tulse Hill LTNs to be made permanent!!!!!
Love Lambeth
Lambeth Council is proposing the temporary Streatham Hill and Tulse Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) should become permanent.love.lambeth.gov.uk
you lost, cant you people just shut upOr even exploiting. Point still stands, they have the option so it’s up to them. In any event, the local community will continue to look after her
Just seems to be the same usual few. Notable that lots of the OneLambeth signs outside houses have started coming down since the election.There’s some simply glorious meltdowns happening on twitter as a result of this news
Intelligentyou lost, cant you people just shut up