I am wending my way through a legal case driven by my landlord which is
in the county court.
The Particulars of Claim were served, I filed a defence and have now
received a reply to that. It contains some astonishing statements that
are amazingly easy to refute - like "the defendant has sent no
correspondence on xxx subject". So far I have found a dozen emails (all acknowledged by their email system) and 8 texts - and I still have 2
years' correspondence to check.
I feel inclined to send a "without prejudice" letter to their solicitor asking if they want to withdraw the reply, it just feels like the
"right" thing to do (I know the person who signed the statement with a "Statement of Truth" and I don't know if she is in blissful ignorance or
if she is being bullied).
If I do send such a letter is the solicitor obliged not to mention it in proceedings or it that no longer honoured?
Do I just reply (presumably with copies of the correspondence), do we
then go through it at trial?
Be interested in people's thoughts.
I am wending my way through a legal case driven by my landlord which is
in the county court.
The Particulars of Claim were served, I filed a defence and have now
received a reply to that. It contains some astonishing statements that
are amazingly easy to refute - like "the defendant has sent no
correspondence on xxx subject". So far I have found a dozen emails (all acknowledged by their email system) and 8 texts - and I still have 2
years' correspondence to check.
I feel inclined to send a "without prejudice" letter to their solicitor asking if they want to withdraw the reply, it just feels like the
"right" thing to do (I know the person who signed the statement with a "Statement of Truth" and I don't know if she is in blissful ignorance or
if she is being bullied).
If I do send such a letter is the solicitor obliged not to mention it in proceedings or it that no longer honoured?
Do I just reply (presumably with copies of the correspondence), do we
then go through it at trial?
Be interested in people's thoughts.
Is your Landlord rich? This must be costing him a small penny, and if it's >allocated to the Small Claims Track he's not going to get much costs back,
if anything, even if he wins.
I think if I wanted to point out that the pleading contains incorrect >information I would do it in an open letter that I wouldn't mind showing
to the court in due course. I would point out that the statement of truth
has been signed despite the inaccuracies in the pleading.
But I think I would enclose the various pieces of correspondence to prove >your point.
On 27/04/2023 in message <u2epph$2398c$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
Is your Landlord rich? This must be costing him a small penny, and if
it's allocated to the Small Claims Track he's not going to get much
costs back, if anything, even if he wins.
It's a company with about 80 retirement developments with long leases.
The leases requires leaseholders to pay all the costs of managing, which
the landlord feels includes the costs of suing leaseholders, so we pay
win. lose or draw.
On 27/04/2023 in message <u2epph$2398c$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
Is your Landlord rich? This must be costing him a small penny, and if
it's allocated to the Small Claims Track he's not going to get much
costs back, if anything, even if he wins.
It's a company with about 80 retirement developments with long leases.
The leases requires leaseholders to pay all the costs of managing, which
the landlord feels includes the costs of suing leaseholders, so we pay
win. lose or draw.
It's a company with about 80 retirement developments with long leases.
The leases requires leaseholders to pay all the costs of managing, which >>the landlord feels includes the costs of suing leaseholders, so we pay
win. lose or draw.
Is there not a caveat that the managing company is acting competently and
in the interest of the leaseholders?
Is there no liability at all? Is the managing company insured?
On 28/04/2023 in message <u2gbra$2dvus$2@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
It's a company with about 80 retirement developments with long leases.
The leases requires leaseholders to pay all the costs of managing, which >>> the landlord feels includes the costs of suing leaseholders, so we pay
win. lose or draw.
Is there not a caveat that the managing company is acting competently and
in the interest of the leaseholders?
That would be a dream situation :-)
The current situation arose because there were conflicting statements
about who owned the freehold so I wrote with an enquiry under Section 1 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, please, who is my landlord? The MD took umbrage (leaseholders are supposed to be seen and not heard) and refused
to reply so I stopped paying service fees.
Is there no liability at all? Is the managing company insured?
The last case involved a small group of leaseholders who queried the reasonableness of service fees. When they issued proceedings the landlord raised a levy of £50,000 on the estate (divided between 24 units). Those
of us who pay by cheque just ignored it, those paying by DD had it taken
from their bank accounts.
In the end the case was dropped. The Tribunal did say in its interim judgement that the amount levied was unreasonable and intended to
intimidate leaseholders but if the case had proceeded the actual costs
would have been payable. A person with no arms could count the number of monkeys given by the landlord on his/her fingers.
We have a government with a majority around 80 which keeps talking bout
the inequality of leasehold but does sweet Fanny Adams about it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:08:44 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,353,786 |