Repeated litigation by different Property Management Companies

[Lauren125]

Thank you for your updates on the leasholder having to pay for the freeholders costs even when win the case.

Some Briliant news and a suggestion.

After writing to my MP he called me  personally this morning. He absolutely understands the issues of the unfair legal clause and that the loophole where non-residential leases have no redress system and will be lobbying for this to be included in the leasehold legislation though it does not help short term.

Short term.

a)  I am not legally trained to understand the exact details on the links for Blurred and what legal help he would need to bring this to the judges attention however I would make a couple of points

1/ In the R Barlcay case who won £1200 against the freeholder then had to pay  circa £32000 for the losers legal fees. The redress scheme has upheld the decision that he should pay the costs. I wonder if the unfair legislation you state could support leasholders like R  Barclay and others that the redress system has not made them aware of this?

2/ As leaseholders we are the littemen, the Management Companies have teams of lawyers and resourses to throw a case to potentially deter other leaseholders from fighting a just cause, this is an issue to talk to your MP about

This forum is helpful because we can help others be aware of the potential issues and how to avert however I would urge you to lobbly your MP as I have, letters are being written our voices will be heard in the longer term.

[Manxman in exile]

3 hours ago, Andyorch said:

Contracts in general......with regards to property/ land you need to read the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/contents

 

No thanks!  I got a law degree in 1979 and am not that interested in going back to the LPA and Megarry ( & Wade?).  Certainly not £250 interested which is what the latest edition appears to cost!

[Manxman in exile]

I can't remember all of the OP's issues (I did read the original thread but it was long and complex and I don't remember it all) but I think that as regards being lumbered with the landlord's legal costs, even if the OP wins, I'd be looking at the terms of the lease in the first instance.

 

IIRC the OP's LL and the management company seem a bit amateurish, don't really seem to know what they are doing, and seem more than a bit incompetent.  I wouldn't be surprised if the lease doesn't say anything about paying the losing landlord's legal costs.  It needs checking to see one way or the other.

[AndyOrch]

3 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

 

No thanks!  I got a law degree in 1979 and am not that interested in going back to the LPA and Megarry ( & Wade?).  Certainly not £250 interested which is what the latest edition appears to cost!

 

   See you checked the price though....9th Edition....time flies

 

 

https://www.wildy.com/isbn/9780414066991/megarry-wade-the-law-of-real-property-8th-ed-hardback-sweet-maxwell-ltd-ba020279-02d6-4ca5-bc56-5a4e3b38a44a

[Manxman in exile]

But not that quickly.  I work out that the last six editions have been spread over nearly 55 years.  Not many law texts get updated at such long intervals.  Of course, nothing ever happens in land law.

 

I presume we had the 1975 edition (hardback) a copy of which is going for about £6.80 on Amazon.  Might be mine...

[BlurredFX]

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)