Managing Agent leasehold Property 4th Court Claim same issue.

[steampowered]

Well done!

 

Personally, I think that 21 days should be enough time to put together a Defence to his amended claim. Its up to you but I think it might be worth waiting to see what he says rather than working yourself up in the meantime. You could use the spare time to make sure you have got your documents together and perhaps put them in a logical order (i.e. in chronological date order).

[BlurredFX]

You're right, SP.

 

As you suggest, I will get the paperwork in much better order, and then get them all scanned and sorted out properly as well. I don't have electronic copies of everything, and I should. I could probably post some (redacted) copies up as well, so I can show people what I am referring to.

 

While going through the paperwork, I will keep a jotter just to note down anything that comes to mind and then when that's done, I will see where we're at, and take stock at that point.

 

I am knackered - I hardly slept last night, I was keyed up, so relax time for me! Thank you for your help.

 

Blurred

[DonkeyB]

I think he got the fright of his life, and 45 minutes of lectures off the Judge. He was out of there like greased lightening after the hearing, I tell ya!

 

This is what happens when bullies come up against real authority, and people like you stand up to them. You’re very brave and resilient.

[andydd]

Well hes a LiP in that he didnt have solicitor I assume ? Perhaps that's why hes made such a cock up of it all ?

 

Certainly be worth asking for costs, point out the time hes wasted, etc. I think "wasted costs" only applies to solicitors ?, but I might be wrong.

[BlurredFX]

Hiya Guys,

 

The hearing was Thu the 31st. The claimant sent me an invoice dated 4th, first class, arriving Tues 5th, that showed my recent payment, and a bundle of figures arranged to show the outstanding amount he is claiming for. Which is actually wrong on a variety of levels - I'm actually a month in arrears, (having gone into the new month). I think he thinks that's what the Judge wants... but anyway, he can think what he likes, we have an Order.

 

Claim Number: claim2014

Date: 11 April 2016

 

Them

vs

Me

 

Upon hearing the Claimant and Defendant in person

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. The hearing of today's date be adjourned.

 

2. The Claimant to file and serve a fully Particulars (detailed) Particulars of claim to set out the basis to the claim, entitlement of the Claimant to recover sums from the Defendant, detailing sums recovered and any outstanding payment plus other details which the Claimant may advise to address by 22 april 2016.

 

3. The Defendant to file and serve a detailed defence adressing the Particular of Claim in para 2 above by 12 may 2016.

 

4. If the Defendant wishes the application of today's date to be relisted (upon consideration of the fully particularised Particular of Claim), the Defendant should write to the Court, at the same time as filing the defence, with a copy of this order, asking the Court to relist the application for hearing with an estimated length of hearing of 1 hour 30 minutes (30 minutes of it being reading time). In the event that the application is listed, both parties to file and serve detailed statements addressing the subject matter of the application 7 clear days before the hearing.

 

Dated 31 March 2016

 

Whoever typed it doesn't possess excellent proof reading skills, but there it is as it came...

 

I'm just going to have a read and take it on board. As best I can work out it says if the Claimant doesn't get his case together, re-send your application (for SJ/Strike Out). If he does get his claim together, respond to it.

 

Which is fine by me...

 

Thing is, as the Judge was giving him his lecture, he spelled out the documents he wanted to see, but the Claimant was just looking at his feet - he didn't take any notes. So this is the first chance he has to see what the Judge wants, and perhaps he will realise that his dodgy invoices aren't measuring up. There was me thinking I was going to have to go through my chronological filing pile (actually it's more sorted these days) and try and decipher what he's taken, claimed, and everything. I shall just wait for him to send it to me.

 

Hopefully, what he will do is tie the two companies (pre-RTM and post-RTM) together, fail to come up with any mandate to collect before July 2014, and I can string him up on a counter-claim for monies already claimed, that I think I might just put in with my defence.

 

What I fear he will do is not respond, again.

 

There was discussion earlier in the thread as to who is best to prosecute in terms of getting my money back. I think mortgage company, personally. But, if I also submit a counter-claim we'll get an we have an answer and our discussion won't matter... It's been said a number of times that the law isn't clear in this area. Let's ask the Judge to decide? Or is that too simplistic?

 

Does that make sense? Do I make sense?

Edited April 12, 2016 by BlurredFX
Date of hearing

[DonkeyB]

1. Just keep a record of what he sends you and when. You can’t really do anything until 22 April.

 

2. I would await the outcome of this case and, when you win – which you must – ask the mortgage company to repay to you the monies it paid that were not owed, as judged by the court, on pain of you taking them to court. That would be simplest.

[BlurredFX]

While I have the Order for him to disclose whatever I ask, I might as well ask him to establish his right to claim in the case of the post-RTM company as well.

 

If he can't, I'll ask for all my payments made to the post-RTM company back in my counter-claim and all!! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Should give him a little something to do. He has that documentation, I think, but I can't be sure, and anyway, it serves my ends if his tiny brain is pre-occupied with doing that instead of anything else I can possibly think of!!

[BlurredFX]

2. I would await the outcome of this case and, when you win – which you must – ask the mortgage company to repay to you the monies it paid that were not owed, as judged by the court, on pain of you taking them to court. That would be simplest.

 

That is my instinct, as it was the Judge's during the "re-trail" (of claim2011) following the set-aside (of claim2011). But it seems sensible (and I have been cautioned the same) to not base everything on the on-the-spot musings of a Judge. To me it makes sense going after the mortgage company - if there was never a relationship me and the Claimant - and they never took any money off me, how can I claim for it back? My claim is against the mortgage company who debited my account - for amount debited plus additional interest paid, plus 8% interest on that, plus costs, who then have a claim against the Claimant for what they paid me, all plus 8% interest plus their costs. Oh dear...

 

Irrespective of our opinions though, would it be speedy and efficient to put it the the Judge, get a decision, then take that to the mortgage company as well?

[andydd]

All seems good but as for mortgage amount I'm not sure judges will want to comment on issues that are outside of the original money claim.

 

The issue about mortgage company wrongly paying up is complex and whilst I've seen it mentioned a few times I'm not sure of the law surrounded it.

 

Might want to start simply asking them why did they pay up ?, they should of as s minimum sought your view but if there was at the time judgement in FH favour even if later over turned they were prob within their rights to pay FH.

[BlurredFX]

Hiya Guys,

 

The claimant has served over 300 pages on me... including things like the incorporation certificate of the RTM company, Tax Returns, details of other people's accounts in the block, copies of paperwork from other claims he says he has won... ALL kinds. There is no table of contents. He doesn't refer to many documents in his Witness Statement apart from the WS by the old-LL. He also has referenced a letter I wrote in 2009 (to the Directors and former directors of pre-RTM) entitled **WITHOUT PREJUDICE** in his WS, but I don't think he has included the actual letter - it was a genuine attempt of mine in 2009 to sort this out. He has also included a copy of the letter from the new LandLord that confirms that pre-RTM is not authorised by the new-Landlord or the Old-Landlord. I am up to date with the post-RTM company, though obviously that isn't how he characterises it!

 

I'd have put these on earlier, but he must have delivered them over the weekend - the envelope is hand-delivered on 22 April according to it's envelope... I didn't get it till Monday lunch. It wasn't there when I checked Friday mid-afternoon. ******. Then, I discovered that an upgrade to Windows 10 has left my scanner cosigned to the bin - and the new one arrived yesterday afternoon.

 

There are two important documents as I see it - both the Witness Statements.

 

Below is a link to them:

 

 

I should also have copies of the document he claimed was "signed" by an old directors of pre-RTM - when it was just a Terms of Business with a name typed at the bottom of it. Plus he "purported" to have sent documents to the Court before - that the Judge picked up on and used that exact word to describe what had happened. (The Court received a covering letter and that's it; I received nothing). The Claimant will stop at nothing, including forgery. I don't understand, it isn't even his money he is arguing about!! I reckon he's in it up to his neck somewhere, but that's by-the-by - he will forge documents, so if we have to call old-LL to ascertain his position, that's fine by me. The old Landlord did EVERYTHING through his solicitor, such a WS strikes me as very uncharacteristic, very much so.

 

I'm so sorry about this. What am I supposed to do with this?

 

Blurr

[BlurredFX]

These should be sensible and readable.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jzg3f4lvi24dsbh/AAC3zD6XprfQnsOQzjGY5ltya?dl=0

[DonkeyB]

Christ on a bike. Is this real? Someone has rather lost the plot...

[andydd]

At small claims I dont think there are any specific rules about evidence, I know fast track has strict rules and this stuff would prob get chucked out. I'm not sure if there is specific CPR about formatting evidence at small track, might be worth a look.

 

Clearly all of this must not only be delivered to you (late !) but also to court so the court will have a definitive record when it was delivered, I also think the judge may not be too happy if its al a mess and he cant follow it.

 

I really dont know what you are supposed to do with all this bumf, dont forget hes got to persuade a Judge, a judge might well be just as ****ed off as you with all this goobldygook, I dont think anyone here can even follow whats going on anymore.

[steampowered]

The Claimant was only asked to provide a Particulars of Claim, not his evidence ... let alone a bunch of irrelevant evidence.

 

4. If the Defendant wishes the application of today's date to be relisted (upon consideration of the fully particularised Particular of Claim), the Defendant should write to the Court, at the same time as filing the defence, with a copy of this order, asking the Court to relist the application for hearing with an estimated length of hearing of 1 hour 30 minutes (30 minutes of it being reading time). In the event that the application is listed, both parties to file and serve detailed statements addressing the subject matter of the application 7 clear days before the hearing.

It seems to me you should follow the process suggested here and resume your previous application for this to be struck out.

 

As stated above, you can simply ask the court to relist the application for hearing, and when you have a hearing date would then provide a witness statement together with your evidence 7 clear days before the hearing (so you ignore the day of the hearing itself and the day you serve ... so in reality needs to be a bit more than 7 days).

[andydd]

I agree there might be a valid claim amongst all that crisp in the poc but it's hard to see where, it might be possible to get it all of at least parts of it struck out and then concentrate on the bits you wanted re-instated etc

[andydd]

So Blurred, do you understand their POC ?, does it make sense or partially make sense to you ? Im finding it hard to make head or tail of it and it doesnt IMO make the case that you owe anything, the claimant needs to show a clear contractual relationship and whilst the first half makes some attempt the second half wanders off into various accusations and these are not in any way legal arguments, just petty name calling and hearsay.

 

Some of it shows no legal knowledge. "we request we are awarded judgement in our favour accordingly", ha..pathetic

 

Their 6 points that then follow still dont show a concise legal argument that the monies are owning, they just refer to other LH and previous cases.

[DonkeyB]

So Blurred, do you understand their POC ?, does it make sense or partially make sense to you ? Im finding it hard to make head or tail of it and it doesnt IMO make the case that you owe anything, the claimant needs to show a clear contractual relationship and whilst the first half makes some attempt the second half wanders off into various accusations and these are not in any way legal arguments, just petty name calling and hearsay.

 

Some of it shows no legal knowledge. "we request we are awarded judgement in our favour accordingly", ha..pathetic

 

Their 6 points that then follow still dont show a concise legal argument that the monies are owning, they just refer to other LH and previous cases.

 

Quite agree. You can ONLY answer the PoC as it is presented – but it’s hard to work out what has been presented as the PoC.

[steampowered]

Admittedly I only looked at the attachment briefly, but it doesn't look to me like there is a POC in there. There is a witness statement but that is a completely different document.

 

I would proceed on the basis that he hasn't provided a POC and therefore hasn't complied with the order.

 

In reality the judge may well let his witness statement stand as the POC, despite its non-compliance with CPR 16, but you can cross that bridge when you get to it.

[andydd]

I think its quite close to getting it all struck out

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):

 

(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,

 

(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,

[BlurredFX]

Wow,

 

Thanks guys, I had missed this conversation, I was out yesterday. I've been wrestling all weekend with it, and getting not very far!

 

I will read through what you have all written in detail. I think the consensus is that his claim is a complete load of gibberish. I think andydd you might be right with rule 3.4(2)(a). My first job today was to go through and see if such a rule existed. I'm glad that it does.

 

One thing that I spotted, is where he details the payments I have made, they don't total up to the total he claims!!

 

This is the post-RTM company, chasing pre-RTM debts, and he hasn't as far as I can see, established any continuity between them, or a transfer of assets and liabilities.

 

I find it curious that the old-LL ALWAYS communicated through his solicitor, then suddenly an informal WS, with no third party to verify it!

 

Further, why did the old-LL inform the new-LL that pre-RTM were an informal appointment, and why did new-LL confirm this in a letter to all lease-holders confirming that the lease was unenforceable by that company? There is even a copy of that letter in the Claimant's 300 page bundle - I noticed because he has used a photocopy of the same document I submitted as a key part of my defence in claim2011. Looking at it, he has asked the Court for copies of everything in all the cases and just submitted everything.

 

There's other things I can point at that's wrong, but experience in the commercial world tells me not to get too involved in pointing out his shortcomings otherwise I will end up doing his litigation for him!

 

For all of his waffling on, he doesn't address my "second line of defence" that it's his address on the Invoices, even though he isn't the LL. And I haven't even started on the fact that the building is falling to bits! Or the letter I have from the Claimant confirming that despite what the lease says, the decorating isn't getting done because it is felt it isn't needed. Or the letters dating back to 2012 regarding the double glazing that hasn't happened, and how he was about to press "go" on seventy grands worth of work - without planning permission! Bad enough if it wasn't for the fact we live in a conservation area and I have since discovered (and pointed out to him in writing) that there is a clause in the Planning that requires us to have timber sash windows...

 

Looking and reading the above, tells me that I should just follow the simple process outlined in the Order. His POC, as far as I can see, is on the claim form along the lines of "BlurredFX purchased a long-leasehold, and he hasn't paid his Service Charges as per 6.2 (or whatever) of his lease" and the amount claimed.

 

At this stage I am thinking I will re-submit the application along with an additional WS pointing out his abject failure to make any sense - point out things like his sums not adding up, the fact that chunks of his WS is quoting a Without Prejudice letter I sent in 2009, that represented a viewpoint I might have been willing to take at that point, and should be ignored

 

Perhaps I could point to the letter from the current-LL that says the lease is unenforceable by him? I will post a copy of that letter up I think. That's the killer bit of evidence as I see it - but I just don't want to get dragged too far into it.

I will get that letter scanned and put up, and see what we make of that, and his claim form.

 

You guys are wonderful; and I continue to be so grateful. This isn't straight-forward stuff, even though it should be, and you are to be commended for your staying power. Thank you. I will get those documents up, and see if I can straighten my thoughts out because, even a week later, they are all over the place, and that's not good.

 

Nice one, time for a coffee,

 

Blurred

[steampowered]

The judge has already set out in the order how he wants this to proceed to another hearing if the Claimant doesn't serve a proper POC, so it seems to me you should just follow that process.

 

The judge has directed a time estimate of 1.5 hours, including 30 minutes for the judge to read the papers. This means the hearing itself will probably only get an hour. In that time you will not have time to go on a detailed point-by-point rebuttal of everything the Claimant has alleged (and in any event that is not the purpose of strike-out/summary judgment hearings, which are designed to be mechanisms for getting rid of hopeless claims).

 

Therefore you will need to be a little bit selective as to what you put in the witness statement provided 7 clear days before the hearing once it is listed (as directed in point 4 of the judge's order), and what you say at the hearing - focus on the key points.

[BlurredFX]

I can't make head nor tail of it really. I know what he is getting at, but I think he is being vague as he knows he is on very ropey ground. I think he wants the Judge to do the prosecution for him. The Order seems clear that the Judge wants a breakdown of whats been paid, on what basis, and by whom. And further who is claiming what for when. He wants a proper case upon which to make a judgement. The Claimant isn't providing that. The Judge basically said at the hearing that it was high time this lot was sorted - and he is right. Otherwise, I think he'd have thrown it out. Sadly, the claimant isn't facilitating that process, as I see it anyway.

 

I will post some more letters from the LL up later, where he clearly states that the old arrangement (pre-RTM) was an informal one etc.

 

I see it as thus: Pre-RTM doesn't have a legitimate claim. They got Judgement in Default (now set-aside). Post-RTM is bringing this case for dates that are pre-RTM. - but I am up to date with the post-RTM company for post-RTM dates (i.e. since Jul 2014).

 

So my defence goes vaguely like this:

• I am embarrassed
  
• The claimant company (post-RTM) has allegedly gone through the RTM process as of Jul 2014. I am up-to-date with that company since Jul 2014.
  
• He hasn't established a link between pre-RTM and post-RTM.
  
• Pre-RTM clearly has no mandate to collect - as confirmed by the LL
  
• Therefore it should be thrown out.
  

 

As a rough backbone goes, what do we think?

 

Nice one folks, all opinions welcome; I will make the decisions, and I will take the responsibility. But I'd rather hear it here first than be unprepared in the Court Room.

 

BlurredFX:)

Edited May 4, 2016 by BlurredFX
extra sensence for clarity

[Andyorch]

" I am embarrassed "

 

I would drop that reason

[BazzaS]

" I am embarrassed "

 

I would drop that reason

 

Replace it with : "The claimant has not sufficiently particularised their claim to clearly show the sums they allege are owed"?.

[BlurredFX]

How does

"The claim as pleaded does not contain sufficient particulars to permit me to file a properly particularised and pleaded defence"

sound? I am sure it originated on here, I found it amongst a previous defence to this lot!

 

and then in addition/alternatively, along the lines of

 

The Service Charge demands do not comply with s21(b) of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and therefore the Defendant is using his right to withhold payment. Should any valid demands be issued then any costs incurred more than 18 months prior are unrecoverable due to s20(b) of the LTA.

 

The Service Charge demands did not contain the name and address of the Landlord as required by s47/s48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

 

The Service Charge demands sent to me by the Claimant were either not accompanied by the ‘Summary of Rights – Administration Charges’ notice as required by S21B of The Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 or when accompanied by said ‘Summary’, the ‘Summary’ did not follow the form and content as laid down by The Service Charges (Summary of Rights and Obligations, and Transitional Provision) (England) Regulations 2007.

I am therefore using my right under Section 21B (3) of The Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 to withhold payment, the alleged Service Charge arrears are not payable, therefore the claim must fail.

 

The building is falling to bits and has not been maintained. I have letters from the Claimant confirming that decorations are "not felt to be necessary" or something, so I can include that as evidence.

 

I also have other examples of his complete ineptitude that I was thinking might be good to include as "background" and "Examples of the Claimants's conduct"

 

I think it's taking shape