Thanks guys, I will double check the lease, but do not recall seeing such terms – but I will certainly check. As far as this issues goes, it is narrowed down to one document. To recap, there are two companies that have taken legal action against me – the first of which was simply a ‘neighbours collective’ and they lied on the Court documents and letters to my mortgage company, stating they were entitled to take enforcement and forfeiture proceedings even thugh they were not entitled to take such action – this company took my money, and was then closed down – voluntary strike off according to Companies House. However, when this happened, the remaining funds from the ‘neighbours collective’ were transferred over to the new, correctly formed, RTM company. I have a letter that demonstrates it, and a redacted copy is attached. This is point 30 on my original schedule of dates at the beginning of this thread. They are arguing that the two companies are separate, and as such the RTM company is legally unconnected to the unofficial ‘neighbours collective’ that went before it. My argument is that as the funds were transferred from the old company (neighbours collective) to the properly formed RTM company means the RTM company Is the correct company to ask for my money back. That effectively indicated that it was a transfer of undertakings, as the funds should have been redistributed to the shareholders of the ‘neighbours collectivee’ not transferred to the new RTM company. Does anyone have an opinion on this? Am I right or wrong? THe paragraph I am relying on is highlighted in red. A potential problem is my counterclaim is going to exceed £10k, so we could get reallocated to Fast Track.For CAG - Transfer of funds 4-Jun-2014.pdf Blurred (Two attachments are the same - one jpeg, the other pdf)

It is they who are taking action against me, i.e. they initiated the court action. Does that mean they can take me to Court, lose, and then hit me for fees? OUCH!

Hi Folks, I have a very long and involved case that goes back to 2009, but this is a more general enquiry about a text I received from GOVUK. I've received a test message about mediation. I believe it is genuine, and is from 'GOVUK' and states: Small Claims Mediation Service: Telephone Mediation 2021-02-08 from 13:00 to 15:00. If you can't answer YES to all statements, mediation is NOT suitable for your case and you must contact us to cancel That is all it says. It seems incomplete, and probably a rather strange way to go about asking a few questions. Has anyone had similar recently, or is otherwise able to cast some light on the issue? I could phone the Court, but they were taking a long time to answer earlier, so I thought I would ask here. Thanks very much, Blurred Ongoing thread: https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/420694-repeated-litigation-by-different-property-management-companies/

Could you re-post think link please? I could do with substantiating what you say as it is clearly quite important. Is it a legal loophole, or something written into the lease?

Thanks BF, Thank you for your candid thoughts, as ever. I can probably rustle up the resources to get a solicitor on-side, and I have pretty much resigned myself to doing the same. I will do some more digging, and see how far I get, and see if I can draw their solicitors attention to those points. I am currently reading s1003/4/5 of Companies Act 2006, so we will see where I get too. It is of great reassurance to know that I am not alone in my thinking. I am almost ready to pay them and draw a line under the whole issue and crack on with my life, but 'I didn't come this far to only come this far' type of thing. I will keep this thread updated. Thanks again. Blurred

Thank you BF, Pretty much my thoughts, too. I do not suppose anyone reading this might know where I might find some legal basis? My gut reaction is that one cannot simply transfer a companies assets without transferring the liabilities - lest everyone would run up debts, and leave them behind! I am currently looking into how they wound the 'residents collective' up. It looks like the funds should have been dispersed to the creditors (the neighbours who had paid the money) but that was certainly not done. I will keep looking into it. Thanks for everything so far. Blurred

Evening Folks, This matter rumbles on, but we seem to have crystallised it to one specific point. The point being: Does transferring funds (assets) from one company to another, then winding the first company up, infer a transfer of liabilities also? Re-cap To re-cap, I am in a drawn-out dispute with the RTM company managing the block of flats in which I have a long-lease0 . Historically, we had an absent Landlord, and before my tenure began in 2006, the neighbours formed a ‘neighbours collective’ to manage day-to-day maintenance. I refused to pay until an RTM company was set up, not least because the building was deteriorating rapidly. This neighbour’s collective employed a company to run manage basic cleaning etc. In 2011 (see point 16 on the timeline in the first post) the manager employed by the ‘neighbours collective’ decided to prosecute me for non-payment while I was incapacitated in hospital. They subsequently obtained a Judgement-in-default. They made false representation to the court that they were entitled to take such action, and then went on to threaten my mortgage company with forfeiture of the lease by signing off as the lessor (freeholder) (see 19b) even though that is/was demonstrably false. My mortgage company paid up without question, even though the applicant was lying. The Judgement was later set-aside (see 24a). The neighbours eventually followed the RTM process in 2014 and acquired the Right-To-Manage. The ‘neighbours collective’ company was subsequently wound up, with all the money in their bank account transferred to the new RTM company. Getting to the nub of the issue. The RTM company have started new proceedings for funds I am withholding – though I have the resources to pay it straight away if needed. My argument is that as the money in the ‘neighbours collective’ bank account was transferred to the new RTM company, the new RTM company is responsible for the ‘neighbours collective’s’ (old company) liabilities i.e. re-paying the funds they took by making false representations (either accidentally or on purpose) or at least applying those funds to my balance. I base my assertion on the fact I have a letter from them that states ‘we ensure that all the monies that are currently in the old bank account will be transferred to the new account’. This refers to transferring the money from the ‘neighbours collective’ bank account to the newly-formed RTM company’s bank account. They base their assertion on the fact the ‘neighbours collective’ company was dissolved in 2014/15. In an email of 23rd September 2020, their solicitor states “Please also note that there has been no “retreat” in terms of our client’s, or this firm’s position. It is a fact that the companies are 2 separate legal entities; they are 2 separate incorporated companies with different company numbers, 1 of which is dissolved. This has always been the case and will remain so.” I responded with a copy of the letter showing their planned transfer of funds, and have heard nothing since I replied to them on the 23rd September (2 months ago). So, the big question is, who is right? I suppose the ultimate question is: How would this situation look in Court? Does transferring funds (assets) from one company to another, then winding the first company up, infer a transfer of liabilities also? This case is a complicated nightmare, and this is the abridged version, but it seems myself and their solicitor have nailed it down to this final point - though their solicitor is not responding. I hope someone can help on this narrow point. Blurred.

Evening / Morning Folks, I've completed my response to their solicitor. It is a narrative of what happened and when. It has taken me a while to produce, and a whole lot of stress. It's hard work having to relive some of the events, frankly. To re-cap, this issue goes back to 2009, and there have been several claims made against me. One was paid by my mortgage holder, but that judgement was set aside. Owing to more disputes, where I stopped making payments, they have commenced another claim. I asked them to particularise it, and they did so in the PDF in the above post, and this is my response. It has driven me mad, I don't know why looking back, but it has. My sleep is all over the place, hence I am posting at this time of day! Here it is, and I would be hugely grateful for any input or even someone to check my grammar etc. I have copies of all the documents I refer to that I can (relatively) easily post up. Thanks again, Blurred Blurred_FX_Response_to_solicitor_3_June_2020-1-merged.pdf

Hi BankFodder, Thanks again. I submitted a defence to their claim asking that they particularise their claim, and this is the reply I have had. I.e. letter and statement of account from their solicitor, and an allocation letter from the Court. BFX

Hi Folks, I have an update. I filed a defence saying please particularise your claim. On Monday, I have had a form from the Court noting I have defended the claim and "It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track". It goes on to say I need to send the N180 (SCT questionnaire) back to the Court by 22nd May. I can provide a copy, but I am sure it is standard procedure. Today, I have received a letter from their solicitor, and a statement of account dating back to 2014. Copies of both below. Notably, what is missing is any statement of account from pre-July 2014. You will see that the balance they claimed in line 1 of the transfer is the amount carried over that they were claiming. Line 22 and 23 show them crediting this amount - then I paid the rest of the fees from 2014 onwards (because I have no problem with that). July 2014 is when the unauthorised 'neighbours collective' company transferred everything to the properly authorised RTM company. My argument is that the unauthorised 'neighbours collective' claimed £6,000 from me, which was paid in 2011. I subsequently had that CCJ set aside, but have not had that amount credited back to my account. I want it applied to my a/c, with 8% interest. I have a feeling how they wound up the previous company, is going to be important. How does one go about formally transferring the assets and liabilities from one company to another? I suspect they will not have done that, which would potentially leave me in a stick. I have it in writing that the funds in their bank a/c was transferred to this new company, and the statement shows that they were certainly claiming the money from pre-2014. I suspect they could argue this new RTM company is completely separate from the previous unauthorised company that was wound up. I did make a counter claim that was stayed when they didn't turn up. What I want to do is send a letter back to their solicitor, advising of the other amounts and a bit of history, copies of the Judgement being removed from the register etc, and hopefully the RTM company will listen to their solicitor when he explains my position. THe agent has filled them full of lies having made promises he cannot keep - that is the root of the problem. However, I am unsure of that is the best course of action, or what the implications might be. I suppose my questions are a) how does one wind up a company - I think the notice in the Gazette was possibly when I was in hospital. and b) all things considered, should I contact their solicitor with my points and see what happens, or leave it and wait for a Court date? Do I write and inform them I intend to make a counter-claim for £6k plus statutory interest since 2011? Paying the amount due is not a problem, I have been making provision to keep up with the charges... But I want my £6k back! WITH INTEREST!! Thanks guys, I hope someone can shed a bit of light on my questions?? TBH I am happy that the pre-2014 debt is unenforceable, which is why it was withdrawn, but I honestly suspect their solicitor will be non-the-wiser to that. I honestly believe the Directors of our RTM are unaware that the previous judgement was set-aside - the agent has not told them!! I could almost guarantee it. BFX docs2.pdf

Thanks guys, I've been sorting some other problems out, and they are done now. With regard to this issue, I have almost finished scanning all the documents, which is proving useful in sorting them all out. The other side used to like to send three invoices in one month, and all kinds of rubbish. I am nearly there with it - it is very time consuming. I have yet to hear anything from the Court - I sent my defence in in good time, it was asking them to substantiate their claim. BankFodder, I will try and answer some of your questions, but I hope I do not muddy the waters too much. It is quite complex, but I have a good handle on it. I have learned quite a bit of the relevant law, and most of it is referred to in my various defences etc, so I will possibly need to distil that from the documents. This arrangement is quite common. There are 18 flats. RTM (Right To Manage) Legislation came about in 2002 (or that when the law is) . From the link below "The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 provides a right for leaseholders to acquire the landlord’s management functions by transfer to a company set up by them – the Right To Manage (RTM) company. The right was introduced, not just as a means of wresting control from bad landlords, or managing agents, but also to empower leaseholders, who generally hold the majority of value in the property, to take responsibility for the management of their block." according to this link: https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/right-manage/ Basically, it means there where there is sufficient co-ordination between the leaseholders, they can run their own block. Two leaseholders are directors, though the current two are not currently residents here - they are buy-to-let investors. It's a small town. One of them was previously resident and lives round the corner, the other ones lives round the other corder. This RTM company that we technically own, then appoints a professional Managing Agent to deal with the day-to-day stuff and advise them and/or manage bigger issues. The problem arises because the management of the block was originally set up as the landowner (Landlord) was absent and uninterested. The Landlord he has certain rights and responsibilities. He exercised his right to collect a token ground rent, but never bothered with his responsibilities to maintain the block. So.... the leaseholders set up their their own company and did it for themselves. However, they were not authorised by the Landlord to do so. They just created the company and took on the responsibilities - I imagine the Landlord just let them get on with it to save himself a job. By going down the RTM route in 2014, and setting up a new company (point 31/31a) they took over the responsibilities of the Landlord - and I have paid since that date, except for recently. I have also paid £5k for some windows that had to be replaced. Before 2014 they had no right to collect the money - not that it stopped them! They are only claiming £1000 off me this time, which is 'arrears' since I've not paid in 2019 to date - it costs ~£1100 per year, which I have been paying since 2014. My point is that they should be applying the ~£6k they took off my mortgage provider (20c) to the account, and I should be ~£5k in credit. The Judgement did not order the Mortgage Company to pay it. What happened is perfectly normal though - except for the fact they were not legally entitled to do it - they just told the Court they were the Managing Agent, which isn;t technically true (19a-d). When you sign a long-lease (999 years, or close to it, in my case) it comes with certain obligations to pay for the maintenance of the building, and if you do not, then the Landlord (or RTM Company) can request 'forfeiture' which means they basically rescind the lease as you have breached the terms. The rationale being that if I did not pay towards repairing a supporting wall, it would affect other leaseholders. If forfeiture were to happen, the mortgage company would lose their security as the lease has been forfeited. They are then left with a homeless mortgage payer with no assets or security (because the Landlord forced forfeiture). So what happens, in practice, is the mortgage company pays the outstanding fees, on production of a CCJ (see 19-20c)- which they did. The CCJ was later set aside (24a). Some of the other leaseholders think I am terrible, but they do not understand what happened, or have been fed a half-story - they just get told I was taken to Court and they got their maintenance charges, but there has never been mention of the case they dropped, not the fact the CCJ was set-aside, or all the rest of the details. Nor does it get mentioned that 'we' (leaseholders) had to pay £1800 in fees to the Managing Agent for failed litigation. My voice has previously been drowned out, mainly due to my previous frail health - but that has changed, at least to some degree. The directors of the RTM company have changed to two of the leaseholders that do not live onsite, but they are fully aware of what has happened. They live within half a mile. This is quite a small town. There is a cabal of about half a dozen of them, old acquaintances, who know what is going on, and the other leaseholders just acquiesce - pay their service charges, and collect the rent. The root problem is this: Before I purchased my lease, the existing leaseholders set up a company to deal with day-to-day maintenance issues because the Landlord couldn't be bothered - but it was not done properly. They employed a small Managing Agent (PQR Managing Agent) (my point 2b)) to manage things on their behalf. Then, that small Managing Agent sold-up to a fella who bought a number of similar companies for form the larger TUV Managing Agent (my point 4a). This new larger Managing Agent advised my co-leaseholders to take me to Court (5a) for not paying maintenance fees - but when it got to Court he couldn't substantiate his claim and it went dead (my point 12). Then they waited till I was in hospital (point 13-20c), and and obtained judgement in default (17a) - which was subsequently set-aside, after my mortgage company paid (20c). The owner of the enlarged managing agents (TUV Managing Agents) was inexperienced, and didn't know the law. He gave my co-leaseholders bad advice, and even though he has now realised the problem, he is covering it up, because if I can get things put right, then we (me and my co-leaseholders) can probably pursue him for the money he has cost them, management fees and all kinds - he is in it up to his neck, so he continues to lie. I can pretty much tell what their case is going to be for the £1000 - I have a statement of account from when the RTM company took over in 2014 (Point 31a) and that is what they are going to rely on to formulate their figure. My argument (counterclaim?) is that the £6k they took from me (point 13-20c) should be applied to my account, and fees removed from 2006-2014, in which case they owe me £5k. (£6k less £1k arrears). Quite how I communicate all this to the Court is a tricky one - it's not like I have not tried in the past, though I have not really been able to press the matter for health reasons. Hopefully this time I can get the matter finally bottomed out. One Judge said I should pursue my mortgage company, as they paid out when they shouldn't have - after all I did not have a contract with the pre-RTM company. They could argue that the new company RTM company (formed in 2014 - my point 31a) has no connection to the old company, but that isn't true because the money in the bank was transferred from the old company to the new company - and my invoices show a balance from the old company, that was subsequently written off with the failed case from 2013 (32-33a). My original mortgage was with a more mainstream lender, but the mortgage was subsequently sold to a UK mortgage company who are known for being nasty - which is one reason I have not chased them for the money. I am unsure about the law of transferring the undertakings of one company to another - that could be a stumbling block if they tried to claim this new company has no connection to the old company that won the judgement in derfault, as I am unsure where the law stands - but it seems clear from the paper trail that they transferred the money they had, plus the liability they claim I had to them, to the new RTM company. It's a right old pickle. How do I even go about presenting this to a Judge? The version of events I have done above in the first post needs to be refined, and I need to reference the documents I will rely upon the verify those points, but how do I present it all? Upon receipt of their properly particularised claim, how do I respond? I basically know what their claim will be, it will be a statement of account from 2014 - which would mean i DO owe £1k - but they are conveniently glossing over what happened prior to that - or at least that is how it looks in the online account I have with them.

Hi Guys, Following in from my 17 page thread, that dates back over ten years, I am starting a new thread, at the suggestion of the site team. My issue relates the a) service charges relating to the Leasehold flat I bought back in 2006 b) a Managing Agent who is of questionable abilities as a manager of our block of flats. The Managing Agent has claimed £6k in fees to which (I think, as does the new Landlord) he was not entitled. I am wanting to get it back, and/or the fees on my account calculating properly which would leave me with a credit balance. I am recently in receipt of a 4th claim relating to this dispute, with two of the previous three going 'no where'. The other one they won in default on 2011, but I successfully had that set-aside.They have not given me the money back though. It all started due to poor management of the block, and it transpired upon scrutiny that the management arrangements appear to be unenforceable prior to 2014. It's very complicated. This information is required simply posted, and not as a PDF, so here goes: 1. BlurredFX Service Charge Saga 2. Sept 2006 a. In 2006 BFX buys a leasehold flat. His solicitor advises him that Ground Rent is payable to Landlord-one and Service Charges are payable, but to be wary of the service charges, as he is unable to confirm how they are being administrated. b. BFX is sent a bill for service charges from PQR Managing Agent. BFX enquires as the legitimacy of the service charges, but is unable to get a satisfactory answer. The service charge requests are not complicit with the required legislation – such as the name of the Landlord. They are served in the name of ABC Management Company Ltd c/o PQR Managing Agents. c. ABC Management Company has two Directors, both residents of the block in which BFX resides and to which this dispute relates. d. Landlord-one is absent, except for Ground Rent requests. 3. 2006-2009 a. Despite written and verbal requests, BFX refuses to pay any service charges until ABC Management Company are properly authorised by Landlord-one – because without such, he has no recourse or way to complain. b. Demands are not complicit with the legislation. c. The property was not properly maintained. For example, the lease obligations for an internal redecoration every five years had no been met. The obligations to maintain the exterior of the had not been met, and the timber double glazing was starting to rot quite badly. 4. 2008/2009/2010 a. TUV Managing Agent Ltd buys out PQR Managing Agent (a sole trader, I believe). They seem to operate interchangeably for a few years, using different headed paper along the way. They seem to be interchangeable. It is the same personnel. 5. June 2009 a. TUV Managing Agent LTD, on behalf of ABC Management Company Ltd, file a court claim against BFX. [CLAIM2009] b. BFX asks them to fully particularise their claim, including asking for details of who authorised them to manage the building and various other pertinent questions. 6. 10th August 2009 a. BFX sends CPR18 – request for information to TUV Managinig Agent c/o ABC Management Company 7. 2009 a. Hearing is scheduled for Jan 2010 [CLAIM2009] 8. February 2010 a. There is a hearing. b. Ref: [CLAIM2009] c. From the Court: IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim be stayed to enable the Parties to endeavour to reach a settlement if no application is made to restore by Tuesday 6th April 2010, the claim be struck out 9. 24th March 2010 a. TUV Managing Agent sends BFX an agreement to sign, agreeing to pay. BFX does not sign the document. 10. 2010 – 30th or 31st March 2010 a. BFX attends a meeting with a Director of ABC Management Company and Director of TUV Managing Agent. b. BFX outlines his position, and suggests a verbal agreement to pay from 2006-2010 once the management of the block is properly administrated – my preference being the ‘RTM route’. c. The other people at the meeting do not appear to understand. 11. 1st April 2010 a. TUV Managing Agent on behalf of ABC Management Company write to the Court, asking that the claim be restored, claiming BFX has remained silent. b. Notice of allocation from the Court, dated 15th April, for a hearing in July. 12. July 2010 a. On the day, a lady at the Court informs BFX that TUV Managing Agent has been on the phone, and said that BFX has paid the money and to cancel the hearing. b. BFX had not paid any money at all. c. Nothing more is heard of [CLAIM2009] END of 1st Claim - 2009

Thanks BankFodder, I have made an attempt at the chronology in the below PDF. I have gone through foot high pile of documents - though I have not managed to get it into files properly, yet. That is the next job, but it will not be today. It is all mixed together with other stuff, too - such as medical notes that I have submitted to the court to apply for various stays etc. It is a right mess. I'll start tomorrow. It is clearly my responsibility to manage my own administration, which is pretty poor, but please allow that every time they have started new action, they have done it pretty soon after an emergency admission to hospital. That is what they have done again this time - I was rushed in again in Jan this year, and lo and behold - new claim. The timeline I have produced probably isn't perfect, and there will be more questions, possibly some dates to add, but this is my attempt at a timeline of events. It has taken the lions share of two days, and sapped a lot of energy - but it has been cathartic, if nothing else. Please read the PDF first, but the crux of my position is that prior to Jul 2014, there was no entitlement by the company(ies) trying to collect service charges, and this is backed up with letters from the new Landlord - see 22 (and especially 22d). I have been paying, by and large, since 2014 when the RTM company was established. I want the fees before Jul 2014 removing, and the amount claimed from my mortgage co (Mortgage Company-one) applying to my service charge account - which should leave me a few thousand in credit. I have a nasty feeling though, that once all is said and done, that ultimately I should be chasing 'mortgage company-two' , who will chase the management companies that took the money from them (not me). A friendly Judge explained that this way would be best when we had a chat after one of the hearings the claimant failed to attend. However, I am reticent as Mortgage Company-two are not known for being easy to deal with, or particularly consumer oriented. Should I start a new thread still, or are we OK to continue with this one? BFX

A big part of the problem is that the Claimant is useless, and has not consulted a solicitor. The individual who is handling this claim is not the individual who has handled the previous ones - he doesn't even work in the field, he works as a teacher. BF - I want to go with your approach at this point, for the reasons you give. I need the Claimant to properly state his case so I can shoot it down. I think I have been trying to second guess what his claim might be, and then shoot that down, which is daft. Assuming the draft defence above is good, I can send that next week in the absence of a better choice. In the meantime, I will type up a timeline of events so that it is clear to see, and hopefully people will have the time to read it. Also, given the poor administration on my side, how easy is it to get a copy of all the submissions in each case? That would make it easier for me. Thanks again to everyone taking an interest. Manxman - yes, that is correct. To get the money back, I suspect I may have to start action against my mortgage company, who will in turn take action to reclaim the sums paid to RTM company (or it's predecessor). That is what a friendly Judge said when the Claimant failed to turn up. (The Judge said this informally, after the hearing had ended). I figure that would involve me claiming that money back from the Mortgage company, plus interest, who would then pursue the claimant in my case - for my claim amount against the mortgage co, plus another load of interest!? That comes to big money. Let me get the full story typed up. This claim needs dealing with first. BFX

The leasehold law, and the relationship between Freeholder, Leaseholder, and Managing Agents, and the Right To Manage (RTM). The details get quite nuances (which I will explain when I start a new thread later today). For example, the Freehold has changed hands, and there are actually two different companies (same personnel, and same management company) that have brought claims against me. How does my first draft of the defence look? Always grateful for the time and consideration given to this case. Concise Defence.pdf

BF, Thank you for providing the clarity I need. You're right in what you say, and I am grateful for your candid points. I will crack on with typing a defence, and then move on to the whole story. There is no particular reluctance from me regarding the whole story, I will get it typed up - any reticence you detect is probably because there is a fair bit of nuance, and it involves aspects of law that are a bit beyond the usual scope of this forum - but AndyDD did have some experience of them, which was very helpful. To be clear: Without this forum, I would probably have lost my home. Blurred.

Thanks for updating the title. The new claim has a Date of Service of 5th Mar 2020. I'd have been online a bit quicker, but it has been a busy fortnight. My documents are disorganised as I have been very ill over recent years, and I am still hooked up to a machine for 15 hours a day, so this isn't the only challenge I've got. I am grateful for all the help. I just want the claimant to put a decent case to me, that I can answer. This is a complicated issue, though I understand it fully. It just isn't easy to communicate concisely. What I say above pretty much summarises what happened. I want the Court to order him to properly particularise his claim, so I can shoot it down. That is easiest for me. In a nutshell, if I can condense it down further: I was taken to court in 2009 which the claimant withdrew. He tried again in 2011 and a judgement in default was issued. That 2011 judgement was paid, but then the judgement was set-aside - but the claimant never returned the money he received. I do have a contract with the claimant, from Jul 2014, from whence I have paid what is due. He tried to use the contract signed in 2014 to issue a backdated claim and failed. The claimant thinks we had a contract since 2006 - but I can show that is not the case, only since July 2014. The pile of documents relating to this is a foot tall. Can someone tell me what would be the best to post?

Really sorry if I have led you to think I am ungrateful. Please be assured nothing could be further from the truth. I will get more organised, and revert.

I think I need to ask for a fully particularised claim?? In it's current form, it is not sufficiently detailed for me to plead?? Anyway... DEFENCE – skeleton argument The defendant denies any monies are due to the claimant. The issues within this claim have been the subject of previous litigation by the claimant, and are certainly not as simple as the brief details provided on the claim form. As such, it is requested that the Court order the claimant to file a fully particularised claim. The claimant is a serial litigator. He has invariably been ordered to produce a properly detailed particulars of claim, and despite numerous orders from the Court, has failed to do so. The defendant has not been furnished with a full statement of account, despite requests. A very brief summary of the claims lodged and withdrawn by the claimant is provided below: CLAIM2009 July 2009 – Claimant issues a claim, and there are hearings. The Court orders the claimant produce properly detailed particulars of claim, and then the claimant withdraws his claim. CLAIM2011 May 2011 – Claimant issues a claim. Defendant is incapacitated in Hospital. Claimant is swiftly awarded Judgement in Default. September 2011 – Claimant makes an untrue claim to the Court to the effect he is authorised by the Landlord for this claim. The defendant has documentary evidence to the contrary. DATE CHECK Required – PAYMENT MADE BY GE Money Jan 2013 – Judgement is set aside, hearing is scheduled. **Need to check if particularised claim was ordered** May 2013 – Claimant fails to turn up for a scheduled hearing. CLAIM2014 August 2014 – Claimant issues a claim. Claim is stayed multiple times due to Defendant’s well documented hospitalisation. April 2016 – There is a hearing. The claimant is ordered to produce a detailed particulars of claim. The claimant fails to do so. The claimant ceases his claim. The Claimant has made many opportunities over three different claims and countless hearings and to clearly state his case, but has failed to do so despite the orders of the court. The defendant is confused. Court order after the hearing where he failed to show up in 2013 : This is the last communication from the 2009 claim. The claimant withdrew his case before the hearing, but I never got a letter. There were two hearings in 2016, here is the order from after the first: There is one from Jul 2016, too. Bear with me, my computer is a little disorganised. Thanks dx. Here is a copy of the last order I can find before the very last hearing. At the hearing, the claimant was told to get himself a solicitor, and I heard nothing subsequent, as best I can recall. I have added two more documents to the file: Merged_File.pdf

I'd rather I was corrected here than in Court. Thank you.

Evening Folks, I have a thread that is 17 pages and ten years old, but I cannot comment on it, so I am starting a new one. The old link is at the bottom. Does AndyDD still help on the forums? I am happy that my legal position is right, but I want to know if my defence makes sense. My defence needs to be in next week. The claim states that I 'enterred into a long leasehold interest in 2006. Covenants bind the RTM Company and BlurredFX to pay service charges as specified within the terms of the lease. We therefore request a judgement in favour of the RTM company to the value of £900-ish plus costs' I'm going to see his £900, and raise him £15k, see what happens then. I'm sick of this. There is a long old history to this case, including them getting paid previously for £6k of charges they were not due - that was paid by my lender. That judgement was set aside, but no monies were ever returned. This is the fourth time this has been dragged to court. My first draft of my defence and counter-claim looks like this: 24th – need to find out what was ordered in 1IQ so as to show he was not able to comply Need documents showing him as a liar – I have those.

I will do exactly that. Thanks. It's the correct wording that sometimes escapes me, and at my local Court if you don't know what you're asking for, they won't tell you. I spoke to a Director of our RTM company and it appears that they finally took some legal advice and the advice was to withdraw their claim as they would lose - and the solicitor charged them £1,500 for the privilege hahaha. The Director of our company said he would get onto the management co and get a corrected statement of account out to me - which is probably just as good a copy of their withdrawal letter to the Court. So, I know that they know, that they are onto a loser. if that makes sense. I'll get onto the Court in the morning. Blurred:)

Thanks Andyorch, your on-going help is much appreciated. I can't remember if it got to allocation or not... I know the Claimant has had contact with the court. The Claimant also has a nasty habit of submitting documents to the Court but not me... I can't remember if it got to allocation or not.. he was ordered to submit a fully particularised case, which he failed to do, does that mean it didn't get allocated? I don't suppose you can allocate it without a properly particularised claim. The judge warned him he'd be needing a solicitor... I know it's possible to get the documents, because the Claimant had copies of medical documents I had supplied to the Court when I applied for a series of stays. I did not submit these to the Claimant, and the only people to have them were the Court, ergo, it's possible. I really want any documents as my case is drawn out and I want to be able to explain, with evidence, what has happened, step by step to a Judge - as frankly it beggars belief. I also want to make sure he hasn't been submitting things to the Court but not me. I know he continues in excluding me from decisions and communications about the service charges, as well as ongoing issues with double glazing. They are also refusing to send a bill out - they sent me a statement of account showing the amounts from the Court case as still due. .. despite withdrawing the case, but not a properly executed invoice as required by law. Blurred:)

Hello Folks, No case history required for this question... How can I obtain copies of the Claimant's correspondence with the Court? He withdrew his claim, but I have no confirmation of this. I want to start the process of dragging them to Court to get my stolen money back, so I will need that document in my case. I think I've asked the Court previously, but they were not exactly helpful. I think it is the Court I need to speak to, but I am unsure of what to specifically ask for. Hope you can help. Blurred:)

Thank you very much.