Private homeowners and landowners risk getting harder to compete with companies that want to build mines or roads. It warns Homeowners Federation of, on proposed new rules will become a reality.
Companies applying for permits for so-called water activity, for example to build roads or mines , will no longer have to pay the costs of the relevant questioning state, suggests the State Water Survey Operations. But it means that, for example, homeowners and landowners will no longer have the same opportunity to take advantage of his rights against the companies, said Homeowners Association.
So-called water activity may be that divert groundwater to start a mine, dredge of a construction project or build hydropower. If you like house or land owners consider themselves affected by the activity, for example, if one’s farmland at risk of drying out, you have the right to present their case in a trial funded by the applicant.
But if Water Operations Committee’s proposals go through, they will be individually concerned themselves to stand for both the lawyer and technical expertise.
– These are often hundreds of thousands of crowns in court costs, and this is not being replaced in villa home insurance. The result will be that people will stand there without a lawyer and also without technical assistance because they are unable to fund the cost on their own, says Ulf Stenberg, General Counsel of the Homeowners Association.
Earlier investigations also emphasized that a rule change as it is now proposed, reduces homeowners and landowners’ ability to argue on equal terms with companies, which the new proposal does not account for.
– Is it so you do not have this legal and technical expertise on hand, so it’s very difficult as an individual to protect his rights against a mining company, DMV or any other large company. Their resources’re huge compared to a private person, said Ulf Stenberg.
The manager of water operations investigation, appeals judge Henry Leaf, do not want to set up an interview. But he told The Echo that the main justification is that you want the water activities will be subject to the same rules as the environmentally hazardous activity.
Such activities have today no obligation to pay court costs to land or home owners, and therefore will not have the water activities. But the reasoning does not buy homeowners.
– You want to defend exploitation interests at the expense of consumers. And that is completely unacceptable, says Ulf Stenberg.
No comments:
Post a Comment