The OccupyLSX protest at St Paul's.
A banner which reads "What would Jesus do?" flies outside St. Paul's Cathedral in London.

City of London Corporation is renewing legal action to remove Occupy London protesters from outside of St Paul's Cathedral, describing its talks with protesters as having got "nowhere".

The Planning and Transportation committee at the Corporation voted to continue with legal action on Nov. 15, after previously pausing it for talks with the protesters.

"We paused legal action for two weeks for talks with those in the camp on how to shrink the extent of the tents and to set a departure date - but got nowhere," said Stuart Fraser, Policy Chairman of the City of London Corporation, in a statement.

"So, sadly, now they have rejected a reasonable offer to let them stay until the New Year, it's got to be the courts. We'd still like to sort this without court action but from now on we will have to have any talks in parallel with court action - not instead.'

Fraser also claims that there are "vulnerable people, cases of late-night drinking and other worrying trends" on the camp.

While he admits it will "clearly take time" to pursue this through the courts, he maintains they are "determined to see this through".

Those camped outside St. Paul's will be issued with a Notice on Nov. 16 giving them 24-hours to leave.

If tents and equipment remain outside the cathedral after the deadline, the Corporation will go to the High Court.

Lawyers for both sides met on a "number of occasions", said Greg Williams, spokesperson for the Corporation.

Asked how much legal action would cost, Williams said that "as a highway authority we have to see this through".

Pressed on how many reports they'd had on the "worrying trends" at the camp, Williams said "enough to be worried about".

St. Paul's Cathedral officials are meeting on Nov. 16 to discuss the Corporation's move, though it's thought their position of support for the protesters will remain unchanged.

"We are disappointed that the City of London Corporation has decided to cut off the process of dialogue at their end," said Naomi Colvin, spokesperson for Occupy London.

"Londoners who have seen our formal response to the Corporation may well be confused as to why, for example, the City of London should remain the only local authority in the United Kingdom without a statutory duty to remain accountable to the public under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.

"We are aware of our legal position, have a great legal team on board and are not concerned about the road ahead."

On the Corporation's claims of reports of "vulnerable people, cases of late-night drinking and other worrying trends" Colvin said Occupy London has "attracted some of the more vulnerable members of our community" because it has given "a number of people who society has essentially written off a sense of purpose and self-esteem in a society where they are respected for the contributions they bring".

"Some of those attracted to our camp come from challenging situations and bring those preexisting difficulties with them," she said.

"We have set up a fledgling welfare initiative to help those people where we can and to signpost them to existing service providers.

"We are not in the position to be a solution on our own, we are aware of that, but are doing what we can.

Colvin continued: "If the City of London Corporation wishes to go down this route, what we would say to them is this: Whatever "worrying trends" the Corporation may perceive are not actually trends.

"They are preexisting problems and issues that they, as a local authority, have a responsibility to deal with. Sweeping these issues under the carpet, or seeking to move them on, is no solution - least of all a socially responsible one."