Tenants Trying To Remove Us From Property Using A N24 General Form of Judgement or order

[Ganymede]

Fair enough, but it does feel like you're holding important details back that would have been useful 3 pages ago.

[roony]

Ah, sorry about that, the thing is I didnt know what I should post.

 

I would have posted about the collaterol agreement, but I was told the collaterol agreement was useless as we have no commercial lease with the tenants.

 

So to summarise, its important to note I didnt know what the claimants were saying, before I created this post.

 

All I had was the N24, after rummaging around my mothers paperwork, I came across a letter from their solicitor pre-dating the N24, claiming we had a commercial lease with them, because of the collaterol agreement.

 

Basically the claimants are saying we have a commercial lease with them, because of that collaterol agreement. But we have no commerical lease with them, only a residential contract.

 

Again I wasnt aware of the letter from their solicitor to our solicitor, prior to making this thread.

[Ganymede]

That Collateral Agreement says that it supersedes the AST agreement so the AST no longer exists and it is replaced by the commercial terms in the Collateral Agreement.

 

You'll have to argue that the above is not the case then to defend this claim.

 

Who told you that the Collateral Agreement was useless and why?

[AndyOrch]

This Guy by any chance ......

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?455988&p=4824454#post4824454

 

" I found a barrister by ringing around who was kind enough to give me free advice, over the phone & what to do.

 

He has literally gone out of his way to help me out, unfortunately he's now asking for a fee, to give me further advice. I really don't want to inconvenience him any further.

 

I've got a lawyers fee case against HMRC coming up, for a case which my mother lost & I need to challenge the exorbitant fee's HMRC's lawyers are asking, for around £70,000.

 

I'm going to do the research, but I need a solicitor or a barrister to consult with, to make sure I'm on the right track.

 

I'm going to fill in all the paperwork, & do the research, I just need advice to verify I'm on the right track.

 

The case is due in 2 weeks time.

 

Unfortunately due to tenants not paying rent for over 4 months, we have no cash to afford a barrister for about 3 months. As we're waiting to evict the tenants.

 

Are there any pro bono barrister or lawyer organisations in London? I can pay them after we've evicted the tenants, if that helps ..."

[roony]

lol yep.

[Ganymede]

lol yep.

 

On what basis?

[roony]

Ah thanks for explaining the collateral agreement.

 

I was told it was useless by a barrister, as a commercial lease was never issued to satisfy the requirements of the agreement. But he only skimmed the document, he never researched it, as I dont have the cash ...

 

The terms in the collaterol are conditional, they only get a commercial lease, if they get permission from ofsted.

 

The tenants have been on a residential lease for the last 3 years, if theyre saying according to the collaterol agreement they should have been on a commercial lease, after they got permission from ofsted, as in the collaterol agreement they should file a contract dispute & sue.

[roony]

Ok, from my notes :

 

Our main point is, this is a strict contract dispute, a contract dispute is no grounds to remove someone from the property. If there is a contract dispute the claimant should sue to resolve the contract dispute

 

If the claimant is claiming we should have issued them a commercial lease, then he should sue to resolve the contract dispute.

 

It is clear there has never been a commercial lease, & as such cannot remove my mother from the property with an injunction, on the grounds the claimant has no commercial lease with my mother.

 

I'll post my other notes, I'm still rummaging through paperwork ...

[Ganymede]

It seems that the Claimant's case is that there is a commercial lease in place as by the terms of the Collateral Agreement the residential AST has now been replaced following the Claimant registering with OFSTED.

 

Why do you keep saying it's clear there has never been a commercial lease? It appears as if your mother signed the Collateral Agreement at the same time as the AST.

[roony]

If there was a commercial lease in place, then why do we have no commercial lease with them? We only have a residential AST.

[roony]

Also if you read the collaterol agreement, it specifically states the issue of a commercial lease is conditional, it doesnt say they have a commercial lease on the signing of the agreement. It is conditional.

[Ganymede]

Yes, but you said they were granted an OFSTED licence already?

 

It appears as if you do have a commercial lease as once the OFSTED licence was obtained the terms of the Collateral Agreement kicked in and they replaced the residential AST agreement making it defunct.

 

You will need to argue that the Collateral Agreement terms do not apply now or that it was defective in some way.

[roony]

They were only granted permission from Ofsted two months ago.

[roony]

Yes, this is why I posted ...

 

 

Our main point is, this is a strict contract dispute, a contract dispute is no grounds to remove someone from the property. If there is a contract dispute the claimant should sue to resolve the contract dispute

 

If the claimant is claiming we should have issued them a commercial lease, then he should sue to resolve the contract dispute.

 

It is clear there has never been a commercial lease, & as such cannot remove my mother from the property with an injunction, on the grounds the claimant has no commercial lease with my mother.

[Ganymede]

But by the terms of the Collateral Agreement that your mother signed there is now a commercial lease in place!

[roony]

lol yes, but a commercial lease has to be signed & issued in order for them to be under a commercial lease ...

 

Last time I checked you cant automatically be under a contract, unless you sign a contract first, regardless of any agreement ...

[Ganymede]

My last post on this as we're going round in circles.

 

The Collateral Contract that has been signed by your mother is a commercial lease and the terms of the lease are all included within it. The commercial terms in the Collateral Contract appear to have replaced the residential contract that was signed at the same time.

 

You should speak to your Barrister again or seek further independent legal advice in relation to this.

[roony]

ok thanks ganymede,

 

My contention is, you cant automatically be under a commercial contract, unless you sign a commercial contract first, regardless of any agreement ...

 

If that is what they are stating then it is a violation of contract law.

[andydd]

But by the terms of the Collateral Agreement that your mother signed there is now a commercial lease in place!

 

Its taken 81 posts to get to this important piece of information!!,. posters here should really try better to spell out the facts straight away, we are all volunteers on here with often busy jobs and it shouldnt take this long to get to the crux of the issue. It started of as only advice about N24's and set asides when the real issue has only just been revelaed.

 

It looks to me as if there is a commercial lease in place despite, I dont know whether a separate agreement must be entered into between the parties about this.

[Ganymede]

ok thanks ganymede,

 

My contention is, you cant automatically be under a commercial contract, unless you sign a commercial contract first, regardless of any agreement ...

 

If that is what they are stating then it is a violation of contract law.

 

 

The commercial contract is the Collateral Contract!!

[roony]

Apologies andydd, I had no idea this was the main issue.

 

I just thought I had to go through some procedure to set aside the N24, because all we had was a two sheets of paper.

 

I had no idea it was a full blown case.

[andydd]

ok thanks ganymede,

 

My contention is, you cant automatically be under a commercial contract, unless you sign a commercial contract first, regardless of any agreement ...

 

If that is what they are stating then it is a violation of contract law.

 

Im no expert but you may be wrong on this, it appears that the claimants solicitor spelt all this out to you in a letter pre-dating legal action but you persisted in the view there was no commercial lease contract but there does appear to be, unless you have DEFINITIVE legal proof otherwise.

[roony]

lol ganymede i was just getting to that.

 

I understand you're stating the collateral agreement is a commercial lease, but there are no terms & conditions in the contract to satisfy the terms & conditions for a commercial lease.

[Ganymede]

lol ganymede i was just getting to that.

 

I understand you're stating the collateral agreement is a commercial lease, but there are no terms & conditions in the contract to satisfy the terms & conditions for a commercial lease.

 

What terms do you believe are missing to invalidate the commercial contract/lease?

[andydd]

Apologies andydd, I had no idea this was the main issue.

 

I just thought I had to go through some procedure to set aside the N24, because all we had was a two sheets of paper.

 

I had no idea it was a full blown case.

 

As stated long ago, its a mystery why you bandied around the terms set aside and stay, you dont appear to know what they mean or why you would want them.

 

All cases are Full Blown, they start and they come to an end after the claim, unless it has been ended early in some way, i,.e agreement/consent, discontinuance, a strike out.

 

It appears to me you need to track down the missing paperwork, if it were me I'd visit my local court, although since the appointment system it is not as easy as it once was.

 

We have now got to the crux of the issue and I also recommend you seek some legal advice, specifically you will need to defend and show why the transformation of the lease from AST to Commercial is invalid (there maybe a good defence but I'm no expert on this).