Page 1560 - 10. 2nd half 2018 New 26-05-21 No Table

It was not agreed on the condition that Mr. Cordell should engage with mental health services
and provide medical evidence to support the housing management transfer application. The
court did not state this so I do not know where this is coming from.
I also do not understand where it is coming from that Mr. Cordell had to provided supporting
letter from the mental health services to support his management transfer application, and he
has not done this, he was never meant to have done this and the management transfer
application was completed by Enfield Council to go to the panel on the 17/08/2018 and it was
ready to go to the panel on this date, but this was deferred to be considered at the next panel
meeting which would have taken place on 28/09/2018, which never happened.
The reason for it being deferred was so that I Miss Lorraine Cordell could try and get a letter
from the mental health team, which I could not so it therefore should have gone ahead to the
panel on the 28/09/2018, which I do have the emails to prove this. I also do not understand
why Enfield Council is stating supported accommodation was being asked for as this was
never asked for. I did however state in court that a 2 bedroom would be better as my son
could have family live with him so he could get support from his family; I have never said I
am his career I have never said a lot of things that Enfield Council is stating I have said.
It was stated in the court order.
• UPON the Defendant's mother Mrs. Lorraine Cordell, confirming that she will engage
with the Claimant and assist the Defendant's neighborhood officer in making a housing
management transfer application on or before 16 August 2018.
• UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will deal with the housing management transfer
application as quickly as possible after being made.
• AND UPON the Defendants mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental
Health Unit team so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health conditions
and housing.
The order was to be agreed with my son’s solicitor upon being drafted by Enfield Council,
but my son’s solicitor was on annual leave and therefore did not reply to Enfield Council
order until she came back of leave, But when you emailed her it came back that she was on
annual leave so Enfield Council was well aware of this.
Upon her return from annual leave her amended order was sent over to Ludmilla Lyavoo,
which my son’s solicitor never had a reply back from Ludmilla Lyavoo regarding her
amended order, but some days after the amended order was sent over to Ludmilla Lyavoo, it
seems an order was sealed at Edmonton Country Court which was not agreed on which was
Enfield Council drafted order, which we never agreed to and feel it is misleading as to what
was said in court.
I believe a lot of what was said in court is not being told and misleading information is being
said, maybe someone should ask Ludmilla Lyavoo what the judge said when Ludmilla
Lyavoo said she
4422,
would go for a possession order to the judge because she did not get what she wanted. This
misleading information needs to stop as it is a beach of the data protection act. I look forward
to hearing from you regarding this, please can you reply as I did not get a reply from you to
my last email, I sent to you.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell

4

The Enfield Gov / Email’s Issue:
1117. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Mr Simon Cordell_ (3)