I think he has raised it by saying he never received any money or entered into a contract. He's saying in effect the contract was with the company, the company received the money. Is there a particulalr reason you are suing him and not the company, e.g. evidence that the contract was with him in his personal capacity?

If the lease is made by deed (as I am sure it is) and the obligation to pay arises from a term of that lease then, although one can't be certain without viewing the correspondence, the likelihood is that limitation will be 12 years rather than the usual 6. An assignee/inheritor of the lease will pick up the benefits AND BURDENS arising out of it even if they predate the assignment. The question arises whether you are personally liable or are liable purely in your capacity as representative of his estate - it is not clear whether you are now the tenant or merely PR. If the former then you are most likely liable. Forfeiture has been mentioned and that is a potential outcome. The above assumes the correct procedures, both contractual and statutory, were followed at the time the expenditure was incurred. This thread would attract more relevant replies if it were in the leases etc forum I think.

The chances are they see something in the case which means the merits aren't what they should be. There is no Omerta Code amongst solicitors, it is dog eat dog. But if you live in a small town, go and see someone in the next town or the next city.

I don't know where you get the idea that solicitors don't like suing other solicitors. Most love it. They are trying to fudge the issue. It is part of the solicitors retainer to check that the property being registered is the same as described in the valuation. So if the valuation described the property as having a rear yard then they were on notice of the point and should have checked it.

He should have verified your identity for the purposes of the Money Laundering Regulations and that should have included your current address. The way he should have done this was by seeing a copy of your passport or photo drivers licence plus a utility bill with your current address on. This is especially so since it would seem he has handled client money for you (I am guessing the compo he got passed through his client account?) Ask him for evidence of compliance. The chances are he really won't want the hassle of a potential criminal investigation into his practices in this area. If you have not seen terms of business then it seems he is also in breach of Solicitors Regulation Authority regulations. Ask him for copies of everything you agreed to. Liewise, he won't want the grief of an SRA investigation.

Hi, a receiver in a case like this is appointed by the lender. It is an alternative to repossession. Basically, the receiver will collect the rent and pass it to the bank. The receiver is effectlvely your landlord now (legally he acts as agent for the owner). If you want to discuss then you should contact the receiver and not the original landlord as the latter will have no power to agree anything as regards a further tenancy unless the receiver's appointment is terminated. It is likely that the receiver does have the power to give you notice on behalf of the original landlord whether the original landlord consents or not.

Ed, you need to read the statute. A Sec 21(1)(b) notice can be given before or on the last day of the fixed term tenancy (see 21(2)). A Section 21(1)(b) notce can expire on any day provided at least 2 months notice is given - it need not expire on the last day of a period. All the section says is that 2 months notice need be given. cf. with 21(4)(a) which states notice must be 2 months AND the last day of a period. As regards the word 'after' this is correct too - see the wording of the section - a notice in writing stating that AFTER a date specified in the notice...(although case law suggests that AT the end of a period would be permissible but ON is not). In respect of a sec 21(4)(a) notice, following Lower Street Properties v Rooms a date is not required at all. Your notice only need state that possession is required 'at(or after) the end of the period of the tenancy that will end after the expiry of 2 months from the service of this notice'. This obviates the need for any argument over payment dates etc although you need to be sure of your ground and the correct date before issuing possessionproceedings because they will be invalidated if thye are issued too early. That said, you are correct re the payment date point.

Assuming you are in Eng and Wales (and real estate is a correct term even if not that widely used), although to some extent the landlord's rights do depend on the lease itself, if you are up to date with your rent the landlord cannot forfeit the lease without first serving notice and giving you the opportunity to remedy whatever breach he is complaining of. You need to get in touch with the agent ASAP and find out what is going on. Go round to their offices if they do not answer the phone. Unless they return the keys immediately then you need legal advice pronto as any delay in taking action may well prejudice your position.

They are always like that in Kendals (I'm assuming that's what you mean by HofF Manchester), because they work in a store laughably known as "the Harrods of the North" they seem to think they are somehow it. Just look straight at them and ask them if you can help them. Good point re CRB checks above, I've never thought of that but expect there must be some checks involved.

You show them the lease, take the meter readings whe you go in and advise you are responsible from that date only. It's up to them to prove you owe them the money which of course they cannot do if liability for utilities etc lies with the tenant. Having said that, if the property has been empty for 12 months and there are arrears predating that you might find the connections have been terminated in any event.

Depends what the lease says. Standard is that if rent remains unpaid for 21 days after demand then landlord can re enter. In practice, you can only really do this when there is no one at the premises (as in this case). If there is a residential element to the premises then you cannot simply re enter. If it is just a lock up then you probably needn't have waited. If there are goods on the premises then struictly you need to comply with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act - summary, give notice to last known address and then sell for best price reasonably obtainable, account to tenant for the proceeds less cost of storing and selling. Commercially you have a pretty hefty rent claim against the tenant I expect so any counterclaim for non compliance with that Act will simply offset your own rent claim. Once reentry complete then post notices to the effect that the lease is forfeited with an address and phone number for anyone with goods in the premises to get in touch. It is a good idea to attend with the police or simply employ a private bailiff who will deal with all the notices, locksmithery, inventory etc.

The lease would not detail an entitlement to damages because damages arise from a breach of the lease and are decided by the Courts. However, if there is an adjudication cause then the first step would be to inform the landlord you want to appoint an adjudicator. The parties will be bound by his decision; in these circumstances he will have the same powers as a judge to decide on liability and remedy. The lever is that your landlord is unlikley to want the hassle and risk of going down either the court or the adjudicator route if he can resolve it by negotiation.

No, it is a breach of the lease but not a repudiatory one and nor does it frustrate the lease. You may be entitled to damages but not to walk away. Use it as a lever to renegotiate though.

1. If this is a 'standard' commercial lease then the probability is yes they can although in that case they wouldn't normally be able to 'impose' a new rent - it would be a matter for negtiation with some sort of dispure resolution mechanism built in in the absence of agreement. However, without seeing the wording of the full clause it is impossible to say - some rent reviews have a provision that time is of the essence and if the time limits are missed so is the review. 2. No, not for the flooding. 3. You can't 'force' negotiation. You are bound by the lease. However, the landlord's lack of repair may give you a lever in this respect.

In all likelihood, no. But the clause in the lease is clear so did you not read the lease before signing it? Generally you are taken to have understood documents that you sign. The cover letter also advises you to read and advise if there are any errors. There is a slim possibility of a claim for rectification if you can show the break clause is a mistake and is not what was agreed. Not an easy claim at the best of times and you would need a solicitor to advise having seen all the papers. I very much doubt that you could show the landlord's solicitors owed you any duties so probably no claim against them. Did they misrepresent the terms? Possibly but again it comes back to you reading the actual lease before signing it. Sorry but I think you're on a hiding to nothing.