There is certainly a devil in the detail!

 

The deed of variation existed and was registered at HMLR when you bought. The question is therefore whether you are fixed with notice of what the deed said (or in fact did not say) from the date of purchase or whether, in the circumstances you describe and bearing in mind that the deed did not in fact come to your attention until later, you were entitled to rely on the copy of the deed supplied by the landlord/landlord's agent. To put it another way, is it your actual state of knowledge when you first queried the amount of rent that counts or the knowledge imputed to you? It could go either way in court.

The deed is actually dated some 6 months after the purchase date, it appears to be shrouded in mystery, it is signed by neither myself nor my brother. Like many people the whole subject of lease and ground rent was a mystery to me, so we (sometimes reluctantly) paid the amounts of ground rent and service charges demanded.

The whole subject has got rather confusing, it has already been the subject of a LVT case which wasnt really conclusive, LVT's have no jurisdiction over ground rent, this is why it has its own seperate case.

I certainly don't think i am being unreasonable in not accepting the offer

from my landlord (they have only actually offered to repay 4 years worth), I shall be relying not only upon S32 on the limitation Act but also S166 of the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act which deals with ground rent demands.

Andy

Not sure section 166 will help. First the section says that the tenant is not liable to make payment until he receives notice; I do not think that that means that any rent payable which is paid without notice being given has to be refunded. Secondly and in any event, the Act cannot apply to any demands made before it came into force.

Not sure section 166 will help. First the section says that the tenant is not liable to make payment until he receives notice; I do not think that that means that any rent payable which is paid without notice being given has to be refunded. Secondly and in any event, the Act cannot apply to any demands made before it came into force.

Sorry..I need to clarify this bit too.

The landlord is seeking to also offset £60, which is the ground rent for the last 2 years (2 x £30), BUT he hasn't complied with S166 for these two years, so as it stands nothing is payable for the last two years, so therefore he can't offset an amount that is not yet due.

Andy

Just to add to this, my court case was 100% successful, the landlord didnt seem to know what he was talking about and the judge was annoyed with him.

She asked him why S32 wouldnt apply in my case and he didnt have an answer so the judge allowed my claim going back to 1996 , as you can imagine there was quite a lot of interest on this and I came away a grand happier, she also agreed that he hadnt complied with s166 of CALR Act. After a very dissapointing LVT decision (which I am appealing)_, this case has restored my faith in british justice, plus it was worth it to watch my landlord squirm n make a fool oh himself !

In my case it was the 'mistake' part of S32 that allowed my claim to go back beyong 6 years.

Andy

Clearly your devil was a very friendly little imp.

Without, I hope, in any way deflating your triumph, I would just like to emphasise that the scope of section 32 is a lot narrower than many think and is not always going to ride to the rescue.

Clearly your devil was a very friendly little imp.

 

Without, I hope, in any way deflating your triumph, I would just like to emphasise that the scope of section 32 is a lot narrower than many think and is not always going to ride to the rescue.

You may be right, what helped me was that in their initial defence they clearly admitted a mistake had been made, I wasn't 100% sure if this applied in my case and I was prepared to argue the merits of 'fraud' or 'concealment of facts', but I hardly had to say a word, in fact when I was going to, the judge said do you need to say something, I think meaning 'this guy is just digging himself in a hole so just shut up'..ha.

I'm sure I've read on here about claiming litigant in person costs, but the judge said they didnt apply to a small claims track but she did allow me, 3 hours of missed work costs

There is also the slight worrying feeling that he may appeal, although i cant really think on what grounds.

Andy