Was I illegally evicted?

[MrShed]

OP - remember that you can reclaim legal fees as part of this process, so it may be worth re-considering taking them on...

Edited March 24, 2010 by MrShed

[goonerbst]

I think you guys are correct and I shall be enlisting them tomorrow. They do a no win no fee so nothing to lose in essence.

 

Just to clarify too, the PM's were text I did not want to appear on the forum for fear of a google search by the defendant and seeing my intentions. Same reason I posted the images of the letters up earlier rather than the text too. It is the IT paranoia in me!

[MrShed]

One other thing that I have been pondering on as well.

 

I think that the letter absolutely smacks of the solicitor realising that the landlord has a very weak case, and as such they are trying to perform damage limitation for their client.

 

IF they felt they had a strong case, there would be absolutely no need at all for the out of court offer. I dont buy into the "economic" argument they have put, at all, as the landlord will have had to pay the largest part of the cost when taking the sol on, and then again at court time - by which time, if it was a strong case, they would be reimbursed pretty rapidly.

 

Especially considering she probably isnt short on cash.

 

The fact that they have done this PRIOR to the particulars of defence being available, and ensuring that they wont be in the timescale, reinforces this, and reinforces to my mind that they feel the defence/counterclaim is week.

 

Otherwise, they would have written the letter after the particulars had been submitted, so you would be doubly worried about their strong defence!!

[MrShed]

I think you guys are correct and I shall be enlisting them tomorrow. They do a no win no fee so nothing to lose in essence.

 

Just to clarify too, the PM's were text I did not want to appear on the forum for fear of a google search by the defendant and seeing my intentions. Same reason I posted the images of the letters up earlier rather than the text too.

 

I obviously havent given details, but I can edit out if you want mate?

[MrShed]

I think you guys are correct and I shall be enlisting them tomorrow. They do a no win no fee so nothing to lose in essence.

 

Just to clarify too, the PM's were text I did not want to appear on the forum for fear of a google search by the defendant and seeing my intentions. Same reason I posted the images of the letters up earlier rather than the text too.

 

I wasnt aware that they did no win no fee actually, all the better...!! (As long as their fee isnt exorbitant!).

 

Make sure you ask them if they will reclaim the fee from the defendant in the case of a win - they certainly should be.

[NewSAHD]

Google is good and bad in equal measure, sometimes!

 

Out of curiosity, did anything come up at all when you googled your landlords name/address/email and other etc's?

 

Teatime shortly so off now.

 

As before, best of luck.

[MrShed]

Edited out a coupla bits anyway

[goonerbst]

Google is good and bad in equal measure, sometimes!

 

Out of curiosity, did anything come up at all when you googled your landlords name/address/email and other etc's?

 

Teatime shortly so off now.

 

As before, best of luck.

Nope, I have been checking daily,I work in IT so know how it could have an adverse effect. Have also searched to see if she has posted anywhere too but to no avail.

 

Edited out a coupla bits anyway

Legend Sir as always

[tiaposy]

subscribing

[goonerbst]

subscribing

your not the defendants solicitor are you?

[goonerbst]

I am aware of what "Without Predujice" means but was unaware of what "Without Predujice saveas to costs mean" I found this.........

An offer which is “without prejudice save as to costs” cannot be shown to the judge before he pronounces judgment, but once judgment has been given, the “without prejudice save as to costs” offers, which are normally made following the procedure in Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, are shown to the judge and can be taken into account by the judge in deciding whether to order one party to pay the other’s costs in Fast Track and Multi-Track cases.

 

Normally in such cases the party which loses will the ordered to pay all or most of the costs of the party which wins. However, if, for example, the claimant is claiming £200,000 and fairly early on in the proceedings, the defendant offers to settle for £150,000 but the claimant rejects this offer, and if, at trial, the claimant only obtains judgment for £140,000, the claimant may be ordered to pay most of the legal costs which the defendant has incurred after the date that the claimant rejected the £150,000 offer. This is because, although the claimant company has won, it has recovered less than it was offered and so the costs incurred after the rejection of the offer are seen, with hindsight, as being unnecessarily incurred.

 

Does this mean in theory, that if I am awarded less then the £1200 they offered me then I quite possibly will have to pay their costs? Just wondering what their thought process is in using this in the letter sent to me.

[MrShed]

In theory, yes.

[goonerbst]

In theory, yes.

How stupid then surely? I ambound to get more than that in one way or another? So if I gain a judgement they will have to pay their own costs? surely this is a bit of an own goal?

[MrShed]

I would have thought so yes.

 

I think what they are trying to do is play on the counterclaim somewhat.

 

I think it is very important to clarify in any letter back that you have absolutely NO knowledge at the time of writing the letter as to the contents of the counterclaim, as otherwise they may use this argument.

 

Have you pondered any further on taking on professional legal advisors?

[goonerbst]

I would have thought so yes.

 

I think what they are trying to do is play on the counterclaim somewhat.

 

I think it is very important to clarify in any letter back that you have absolutely NO knowledge at the time of writing the letter as to the contents of the counterclaim, as otherwise they may use this argument.

 

Have you pondered any further on taking on professional legal advisors?

I haven't sent anything back as yet. I called a solictiors on Friday and was asked to call at 9am tomorrow morning.

 

Painsmith do not do No Win No Fee, my google seach terms related to a discussion article they had blogged about and not their payment options.

 

On another note I have found a email to me from her stating that I have to pay interest on a late rent payment from last July at a rate of 5%. upon searching google I notice too that this is against the OFT guidlines as this should be at the Bank of Englands base rate, which further reasearching showed it was a 0.5%. I paid the said interest too.

Edited March 28, 2010 by goonerbst
Wrong month

[Zamzara]

I think their offer smacks of desparation. The 3x deposit alone is over £3k and is a mandatory fixed amount, before we even get to the damages for illegal eviction.

[goonerbst]

Well I spoke to their solicitor today as he gave me a call. I was sent the following.

 

    [b][u]WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS[/u][/b]


 Dear Sir

 [b]Claim No. 
[/b]


 We refer to our telephone conversation of today’s date.  
We have made further enquiries of our client and it would 
appear that from the email that you sent to our client and 
from our client’s inspection of the property you had voluntarily 
vacated the premises.

 Our client will state that she had arranged with you a date 
and time to inspect the premises as per clause 2.10 of the
tenancy. Being the 28th November 2009  Upon arrival she 
was informed by the building concierge that you had vacated the flat.  
When she went to the flat and knocked on the door, the door was not 
secured and swung open.  She was then able to enter the flat and 
could see the dilapidated state of the flat which went far beyond fair 
wear and tear.  The premises appeared abandoned.  There were not 
clothes or other personal chattels left in the flat that indicated that the
premises remained occupied . Our client formed the view from the overall 
condition of the property and lack of personal items that the flat  had
been vacated.   The rent for the month of November 2009 was unpaid. 


 Following our client’s mail to you of  the 30th November giving notice
that she considered that you had abandoned the property  that rent
was owed and that she would seek recovery of the costs of the remedial 
works required you replied later on the 30th November 2009.  

 It is accepted that you denied the extent of the remedial works
but stated that subject to the provision of 3 quotes for the works
required you would discharge an agreed amount.  More importantly
you accepted that the property had been vacated as you confirmed
that you would return the keys of the flat.

 You did not state that you remained in occupation and had not vacated.
You did not contest the notice of termination of our client.  Further 
subsequent email exchanges from November 2009  to January 2010
clearly demonstrate that you did not request or require to be allowed
to reoccupy.

 This further email correspondence also contains the proposals that
both sides would bear their costs and losses and our client would not 
pursue her claim for the remedial costs nor the 3 months rent still owing 
under the tenancy agreement.

 In respect of your claim under Section 27 Housing Act 1988 we would 
direct you to Subsections 7 & 8 but in particular 8.  We are confident that
our client’s evidence (including contemporaneous photographs) and 
counterclaim will demonstrate her reasonable cause to believe that you 
had ceased to reside in the flat.  

 As you now appear to have withdrawn from the proposals to settle 
our client will bring the counterclaim for unpaid rent remedial damages
interest and costs.  As previously advised our client;s counterclaim for 
unpaid rent will equal that of your claim for the failure to protect the
deposit.  As stated above we believe our client’s defence to your claim
for illegal eviction will fail as our client will demonstrate a reasonable belief 
that you had vacated and therefore our client’s counterclaim for the
remedial works will succeed and as a consequence you will be indebted
to our client  for at approximately £3,000.00 details of which have already
been provided to you by our client.

 As previously advised on the basis of your dubious financial circumstances 
and that you have informed us that what funds you have are not within the
jurisdiction of England & Wales we will seek an order for security for costs
before you are permitted to continue this claim.

 However our client is aware of the economics of this matter continuing
and on the basis of commercial reality repeats her offer to settle but will 
increase the said sum to [b]£1,500.00.[/b]

 We also warn that we reserve the right to address the Court on reasonableness
of continuing the action following the making of this offer if and when the issue
of costs arises to be decided.

 Please let us know by return as to whether or not this offer will now be accepted 


 Any questions please call on the direct dial listed above to discuss.  


 Yours faithfully

Now 3 points to this.

 

 

 

1. I sent her an email stating that I am handing the keys back under duress

 

2. I was not aware that I could reoccupy and thought the fact she terminated it that was all in accordance with any statute etc.

 

3. No door was ever left open so my word versus hers

 

Now I have taken legal advice and amquestioning this going forward. Not sure if the lawyer concerned would want my posting up his advice happy to take down if so.

 

        [i]Mr ,

I have had a brief look at the various papers.  You seem to have a claim
for three times the deposit which the other side appear to admit.  You
may also have a claim for unlawful eviction.  However, the landlord is
asserting that she had reasonable cause to believe you had abandoned
the property.  If you advised her that you had not abandoned the property 
then she should have allowed you back into possession at your request.  
I am guessing she failed to do so and that you then surrendered the keys
to her.  She apears to have some form of counterclaim for arrears of rent 
and for damage to the property although I understand that you dispute the
level of the claim.

Taking this forward will involve lengthy litigation and this will put you in
the way of significant legal costs.  If we accept the case on a conditional 
fee basis then this will not prevent you being liable for the costs incurred
by the other side if they win.  In this context winning will mean them doing
better than the offer that they have made you.  If it is true that they can
offset all of your deposit claim with rent arrears and other damages then I
would not be confident of obtaining more than they have offered you in 
Court.  I am not saying that you definitely will not obtain more than that 
sum but it may prove hard to do so, particularly if their assertions as to the
condition of the property and the door being unsecured are borne out in Court.

Therefore my advice would be to consider the offer made seriously.  In 
the circumstances it is not a wholly unreasonable offer given the relatively
small sums of money usually awarded in unlawful eviction cases.[/i]   

 

Now with this in mind all I ever wanted is to be back in London and in a flat there. I am currently working a 3 month contract where I am and living at my folks so bearing no cost. I am thinking of asking them for £2k as full and final settlement as this would put me back where I was and will be enough for a deopist and months rent for when I finish this contract.

 

Thoughts all? Would they go for the 2k? Shall I persevere?

Edited March 29, 2010 by goonerbst

[MrShed]

Right - there is one sizeable revelation there that I do not believe has been on the thread before.

 

Was the door in fact left unsecured?

 

*EDIT* doh, sorry just read point 3.

 

I thought however that there was an issue with quite a few possessions still remaining in the property? Hence, how can they say that there were no personal possessions?

[MrShed]

Also, do you still have a copy of the emails that were sent at the time - i.e. the one they are relying on heavily re: your voluntary giving up possession?

 

This is a difficult one, as I agree with the lawyer that the offset costs may mount up. However, it is important to note that the unpaid rent element cannot possibly be given if the court uphold that you were unlawfully evicted - as such, even if the amount for this was low, there would be no rent claim against it. I also think that you would have good claim against the damages element if unlawful eviction were proven - then you have the likes of betterment and like for like which can whittle the damages down further.

[goonerbst]

Right - there is one sizeable revelation there that I do not believe has been on the thread before.

 

Was the door in fact left unsecured?

 

*EDIT* doh, sorry just read point 3.

 

I thought however that there was an issue with quite a few possessions still remaining in the property? Hence, how can they say that there were no personal possessions?

I have emails pertaining to my stuff being in there and to dispose of as I could not bring them to where I now live.

 

I have an email stating I surrender the keys under duress

[goonerbst]

Also, do you still have a copy of the emails that were sent at the time - i.e. the one they are relying on heavily re: your voluntary giving up possession?

 

This is a difficult one, as I agree with the lawyer that the offset costs may mount up. However, it is important to note that the unpaid rent element cannot possibly be given if the court uphold that you were unlawfully evicted - as such, even if the amount for this was low, there would be no rent claim against it. I also think that you would have good claim against the damages element if unlawful eviction were proven - then you have the likes of betterment and like for like which can whittle the damages down further.

They are alluding to the fact that I said what are the cost of damages you believe I incurred then? If you believe that I damaged anything I want 3 reputable companies to state what the disrepair is and if you can provide them then I will pay for it. This was in the knowledge that 3 reputable companies would not be able to find any damage and that I was led to believe I had to pay for anything found as I was no longer a tenant

[MrShed]

Can you PM me the emails?

[NewSAHD]

Is there any earthly way you can have a sensible conversation with your ex as to the condition of the flat when she left it?

 

If needs be is there a friend who could, perhaps, act as an intermediary for the two of you too?

 

Unless you have done something utterly dreadful that means she will never speak with you again, of course.

 

I have various questions I should like to ask of you, but, for now, it seems to me that your ex giving a clear description as to the condition of the flat as she left it

 

- including, but not limited to matters such as : were there any clothes, personal papers, electrical items, other personal effects, toiletries in the bathroom, cleaning material under the sink, or (fresh) food in the fridge, fruit, whatever, more the merrier -

 

could, to my mind, help scupper some of what the landlord/solicitor is stating in their, seemingly, disingenuous "explanation" of how they found the flat in your absence....

 

Also, I recall that you mentioned that on the 5th November you were chased for rent that was due on the 1st November, with chasers being made by the landlord to your place of work. (I do hope my memory is not failing here!)

 

Sorry to ask, but it may have some bearing, and help, perhaps - did you ignore the chasers? Or did you explain your circumstances?

 

I mention this as I also recall that you had been in the flat from February 2009 onwards without any prior inspection by the landlord. Is the episode over a delayed payment for November what prompted the landlord to want to inspect at the end of November 2009

 

What emails/correspondence/calls were exchanged between you during November 2009 about rents due?

 

What I am driving at, I suppose, is did the landlord say, at any time, or infer in any way, that if you did not pay, or play ball for any other perceived misdemeanor, that you would be out?

 

I may have other questions for you and I hope you don't mind my quizzing you - but I felt for you when I first read your post a couple of days ago.

 

PS I am not a lawyer.

Edited March 29, 2010 by NewSAHD

[goonerbst]

Can you PM me the emails?

PM Full, mails emailed to you sir

[goonerbst]

Is there any earthly way you can have a sensible conversation with your ex as to the condition of the flat when she left it? No

 

If needs be is there a friend who could, perhaps, act as an intermediary for the two of you too? No

 

Unless you have done something utterly dreadful that means she will never speak with you again, of course.She done the dirty with my best mate

 

I have various questions I should like to ask of you, but, for now, it seems to me that your ex giving a clear description as to the condition of the flat as she left it Nope, my social circle is in pieces from the above

 

- including, but not limited to matters such as : were there any clothes, Yes personal papers Yes, electrical items Yes, other personal effects, toiletries in the bathroom Yes, cleaning material under the sink Yes, or (fresh) food in the fridge Nope, the electric had been terminated due to the other half not paying all year as she had been seeing my mate all this time and all money I gave her for the bills she used to serenade the job seeking **** ***** *** that was supposed to be my mate, fruit, whatever, more the merrier -

 

could, to my mind, help scupper some of what the landlord/solicitor is stating in their, seemingly, disingenuous "explanation" of how they found the flat in your absence....????????

 

Also, I recall that you mentioned that on the 5th November you were chased for rent that was due on the 1st November, with chasers being made by the landlord to your place of work. (I do hope my memory is not failing here!)The chase to work colleagues was in July 09 in November no but I was behind in Novembers rent

 

Sorry to ask, but it may have some bearing, and help, perhaps - did you ignore the chasers? Or did you explain your circumstances? Never ignored always conversed

 

I mention this as I also recall that you had been in the flat from February 2009 onwards without any prior inspection by the landlord. Is the episode over a delayed payment for November what prompted the landlord to want to inspect at the end of November 2009Yes

 

What emails/correspondence/calls were exchanged between you during November 2009 about rents due? That it was late amd that I had it in hand and when i got my severance pay I would pay it, expected to be at the end of Nov 09

 

What I am driving at, I suppose, is did the landlord say, at any time, or infer in any way, that if you did not pay, or play ball for any other perceived misdemeanor, that you would be out? Nope

 

I may have other questions for you and I hope you don't mind my quizzing you - but I felt for you when I first read your post a couple of days ago.;-)

 

PS I am not a lawyer.

.

.

.