Title Number : LA This title is dealt with by Land Registry, Fylde Office.

Transcription

1 Title Number : LA This title is dealt with by Land Registry, Fylde Office. The following extract contains information taken from the register of the above title number. A full copy of the register accompanies this document and you should read that in order to be sure that these brief details are complete. Neither this extract nor the full copy is an 'Official Copy' of the register. An official copy of the register is admissible in evidence in a court to the same extent as the original. A person is entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he or she suffers loss by reason of a mistake in an official copy. This extract shows information current on 23 SEP 2013 at 15:19:18 and so does not take account of any application made after that time even if pending in the Land Registry when this extract was issued. REGISTER EXTRACT Title Number : LA Address of Property : 31 Cherry Tree Road, Blackpool (FY4 4NS) Price Stated : 132,000 Registered Owner(s) : ANN CLARKE of 31 Cherry Tree Road, Blackpool FY4 4NS. Lender(s) : None 1 of 3

2 Title number LA This is a copy of the register of the title number set out immediately below, showing the entries in the register on 23 SEP 2013 at 15:19:18. This copy does not take account of any application made after that time even if still pending in the Land Registry when this copy was issued. This copy is not an 'Official Copy' of the register. An official copy of the register is admissible in evidence in a court to the same extent as the original. A person is entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he or she suffers loss by reason of a mistake in an official copy. If you want to obtain an official copy, the Land Registry web site explains how to do this. A: Property Register This register describes the land and estate comprised in the title. BLACKPOOL 1 ( ) The Freehold land shown edged with red on the plan of the above Title filed at the Registry and being 31 Cherry Tree Road, Blackpool (FY4 4NS). B: Proprietorship Register This register specifies the class of title and identifies the owner. It contains any entries that affect the right of disposal. Title absolute 1 ( ) PROPRIETOR: ANN CLARKE of 31 Cherry Tree Road, Blackpool FY4 4NS. 2 ( ) The price stated to have been paid on 29 May 2001 was 132, ( ) The Transfer to the proprietor contains a covenant to observe and perform the covenants referred to in the Charges Register and of indemnity in respect thereof. 4 ( ) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate made during the lifetime of Ann Clarke is to be completed by registration unless made pursuant to an Order of the Court under the Mental Capacity Act C: Charges Register This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land. 1 ( ) A Conveyance of the land in this title dated 30 January 1962 made between (1) Mary Hannah Mallinson (Vendor) and (2) Philip Howman Hadfield and Emily May Hadfield (Purchasers) contains the following covenants:- "THE Purchasers hereby further jointly and severally covenant with the Vendor that they the Purchasers and their successors in title will at all times hereafter observe and perform the conditions contained in the First Schedule hereunder written THE FIRST SCHEDULE hereinbefore referred to 1. Within three months of the date hereof to erect a close boarded fence four feet six inches high separating the land hereby conveyed from the adjoining property of the Vendor on the easterly and northerly sides of the land hereby conveyed, 2. NOT to erect on the land hereby conveyed any building other than a detached dwellinghouse or bungalow with garage and outbuildings in 2 of 3

3 Title number LA C: Charges Register continued accordance with plans approved by the Vendors except that the Purchasers shall be allowed to build lock-up garages on the rear portion of the land. 3. THAT the buildings to be erected on the land hereby conveyed shall not be used for any purpose other than that of a private dwellinghouse or bungalow and no business of any kind other than that of a landscape and/or market gardener shall be carried on thereon. 4. THERE shall be reserved to the Vendor and her successors in title a right to maintain the drains from the adjoining property of the Vendor to the septic tank shown on the said plan on condition that the Vendor keeps the same and the septic tank in proper repair and condition." 2 ( ) UNILATERAL NOTICE in respect of a charge contained in an Order of the Court of Protection dated 24 October 2012 (Case Number: ). 3 ( ) BENEFICIARY: Hugh Adrian Scott Jones care of Pannone LLP, 123 Deansgate, Manchester M3 2BU. End of register 3 of 3

4

5

6

7

8

9 PRESTON COMBINED COURT CASE NO [2012] EWHC 2947 (COP) Dear Judge Jackson I ask; 1. Why have you chosen to dismiss our request for full disclosure of all paperwork and accounting? 2. Why have you chosen to ignore the allegations of financial neglect where the professional care of mum s finances have failed? 3. Why have you chosen to ignore the claims of overcharging by the deputy and the further hiding of that overcharging for 10 years? 4. Why have you chosen to ignore the question of financial Jurisdiction whilst emigrated. How can you claim to dispense justice in a fair and impartial manner when the judgement of the bar in which you are a part of, is a clear conflict of interests? As a Judge what is it that you can clearly see is honourable in this procedure that we have had to endure, where the other parties have extracted costs from my mother s estate when she had been deprived of representation by the clear obstruction of a flow of her own funds to her, for her own solicitor. This in the end made us turn toward common law with jury court refused by you and a commercial lien claim that you also have chosen to ignore. An affidavit, which was sworn under oath & witnessed by a notary & by ignoring this, would you call this poor conduct? How can you be referred to as HONOURABLE when there is no HONOUR in your actions? You have accused me of poor conduct but you have paid the other parties costs from mum s estate whereby one of those 2 parties has clearly obstructed mum s access to her own funds for representation. Is this not poor conduct? Could lying to a client be classed as poor conduct? Could the proof of deceit to a client be classed as poor conduct? Could the proof of theft be classed as poor conduct? Criminal neglect, the failure to do what a normal person would, is that poor conduct? No wonder I am belligerent! This is my mother that you have and are sanctioning all these crimes upon and then committing further thefts against her by extracting more payments to the person committing the crimes. I do not see the honour that you attach to your name. Perhaps you could provide something for me to understand that resembles such honour. Your section 10. The applications by Mr Michael Clarke are refused. There is no basis for delaying the conclusion of the proceedings how did you arrive at this decision when all the above is clearly on display? Could your relationship to the Master Denzel Lush & the cogs that turn within this organisation be a factor in your not being able to arrive at a fair and impartial result, as I doubt any common law jury court would have arrived at the conclusion you just have. It is normal procedure in any court to have full disclosure so what is it that s not normal in your court? By: Mike Clarke

10 JUDGMENT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION Case No: IN THE MATTER OF THE MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 [2012] EWHC 2947 (COP) Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PETER JACKSON Preston Combined Court Centre Date: 24 October 2012 IN THE MATTER OF MRS ANN CLARKE Written submissions were received from: Mr Michael Clarke in person Mr Simon Heapy on behalf of Ms Angela Wild and Mr Kevin Clarke Mr Hugh Jones (Deputy) in person Judgment date: 24 October JUDGMENT (COSTS) This judgment consists of 11 paragraphs. Pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken and copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

11 JUDGMENT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION Mr Justice Peter Jackson: 1. The order of 9 October invited any party seeking an order for costs to lodge written submissions. 2. The family members (Ms Angela Wilde and Mr Kevin Clarke) and the Deputy submit that their costs should be charged to Mrs Clarke s estate. 3. Mr Michael Clarke asks the court to postpone a decison and in the interim to make orders for disclosure and for the production of further accounts by the Deputy and the Office of the Public Guardian. He opposes the other parties applications. In a passage that sums up his general approach, he writes: The property is held in trust for the benefit of the beneficiary (me) and as Executor (also me) of the living will due to continued claims of incapacity on my mother; I instruct that this property cannot be charged. You the Judge are in fact a trustee and in fact are being ordered to act accordingly as that trustee for the beneficiary by the executor. 4. Rules 156 and 159 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 state that: Property and affairs the general rule 156. Where the proceedings concern P s property and affairs the general rule is that the costs of the proceedings or of that part of the proceedings that concerns P s property and affairs, shall be paid by P or charged to his estate. Departing from the general rule 159. (1) The court may depart from rules 156 to 158 if the circumstances so justify, and in deciding whether departure is justified the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including (a) the conduct of the parties; (b) whether a party has succeeded on part of his case, even if he has not been wholly successful; and (c) the role of any public body involved in the proceedings. (2) The conduct of the parties includes (a) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings; (b) whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular issue; (c) the manner in which a party has made or responded to an application or a particular issue; and (d) whether a party who has succeeded in his application or response to an application, in whole or in part, exaggerated any matter contained in his application or response. 2

12 JUDGMENT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION (3) 5. In this case there is no basis for departure from the general rule. My overall conclusions in relation to Mrs Clarke s capacity did not favour any party. While a sale of the Blackpool property has not been ordered at this time, the manner in which Mr Michael Clarke has conducted the proceedings more than wipes out any weight that might be attached to that factor. I identify his use of his mother s case as a vehicle for his political views, his aggressive disrespect towards anyone with whom he disagrees, and his complete lack of regard for his mother and family s right to privacy. 6. In contrast, the conduct of the proceedings by the family members and the Deputy has been entirely reasonable in trying circumstances. Their costs shall be charged to Mrs Clarke s estate and become payable upon her death. 7. Pursuant to CPR Rule 164: (i) I summarily assess the costs of the family members at VAT (a reduction from the VAT estimated to have been actually incurred). (ii) I summarily assess the costs of the Deputy at VAT (a reduction from the VAT estimated to have been actually incurred). 8. I further order a detailed assessment of the Deputy s management charges for the year commencing March 2011, so that the amounts paid to him on account ( ) can be assessed and if appropriate ratified. It is noted that the Deputy proposes to raise no further charges in respect of his work for that year, which in fact amounted to plus VAT, nor any charges for work carried out in the current year. 9. Paragraph 1 of the order of 9 October provides that. Mrs Clarke s Blackpool property shall not be sold or charged during her lifetime without an order of this Court. My orders in relation to the costs of the family members and the costs and management charges of the Deputy constitutes a court order within the meaning of that paragraph. 10. The applications by Mr Michael Clarke are refused. There is no basis for delaying the conclusion of the proceedings. 11. In the light of the one-sided publicity that Mr Michael Clarke gives to the affairs of the family, I shall place my three judgments into the public domain. 3

13 JUDGMENT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION Case No MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 Before Mr Justice Peter Jackson Sitting at Preston Combined Court Centre On 24 October 2012 IN THE MATTER OF ANN CLARKE Upon reading written submissions by Mr Michael Clarke (on behalf of himself and Mrs Ann Clarke), by Mr Simon Heapy for Ms Angela Wilde and Mr Kevin Clarke, and by Mr Hugh Jones (Deputy); And further to the decisions of the court dated 31 July 2012 and 9 July 2012; IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. The costs of Ms Angela Wilde and Mr Kevin Clarke and of the Deputy shall be charged to the estate of Mrs Ann Clarke. 2. Pursuant to CPR Rule 164: (i) The costs of Ms Angela Wilde and Mr Kevin Clarke are summarily assessed at VAT; (ii) The costs of the Deputy are summarily assessed at VAT. 3. The Deputy s costs for the year commencing March 2011 shall be subject to a detailed assessment. 4. The applications made by Mr Michael Clarke in his statements dated 10 and 22 October 2012 are refused. Ordered on 24 October