I have uploaded the PoC and the two exhibits they refer to.

There is also a copy of the Covenants attached as well which is about 25 pages so it will take some time to scan them and I haven't had a chance to see if they vary in any way from the copy we have here.

The court they wish to progress this through is around 150 miles from us as well so I wonder if we can request that changed if it gets that far, I would have thought, though I'm not an expert that we would be given the choice of court to appear and it would not place us under undue expense etc....?

Also, I'm considering a counter claim for the stress of this for the past 5 years, thoughts on this would be appreciated?

Particulars of Claim - County Court Claim - 211117.pdf

Just been reading one of the threads which mentions "rent charge" and I can not find this in the paperwork (covenant) they have attached.

I can not find any reference to a right to charge admin charges or arrears charges either.

I'll scan them up into a document, and hopefully someone might be able to confirm I'm right.

PDC have levied their charges on the account and are making a claim to them but am I right in saying that PDC can't do that unless they can prove ownership of the debt?

Also, two years of the service charges and their admin charges are whilst it was in a different name. I'm sorry to make another comment, I'm kind of thinking out loud but also wondering if I'm on the right track. I'm sure someone will put me right anyway.

no to counterclaim,

if you lose that (most likely) you will end up paying all of their costs and even batting away their claim will still mean they come out on top as most of their costs are made up anyway.

In your lease and covenants there will be specific bits about whether any costs are recoverable from the tenant.

If they are not specifically there then the relevant legislation means they cant charge them,

only the actual money due upon the sending of a properly worded demand for the ground rent etc

OK - Forget the CC.

When you say the wording in relation to "costs being recoverable" does that have to specifically say something along the lines of; "late payment fees can be charged / administration fees can be charged" - or words to that effect but in legal jargon.

If so, I can't find anything that remotely mentions charges or late payment fees.

Also, because the account wasn't in the right name until I told them for the 4th time back in April/May this year and they billed under the wrong name (still have some of them)

- surely they are going to struggle with that as after being notified they have 18 months to bill for the right period and name or as I have read it, the bill is void?

This whole nonsense has caused considerable emotional upset and distress and both PDC and HML have been served with s10 DPA Cease letters

- just to make it a little more annoying and difficult for them considering the level of physical and mental upset and stress this has caused.

I'm going to scan the deeds where it mentions expenses and anything I can find to do with their charging.

Service Charge Section of Covenants

A request for access to their accounts and receipts has also been made

docs1.pdf

nope wrong bit.

That just says how they have to account for what they spend.

It must say somewhere that they can specifically charge a fee for their work in collecting or chasing up any late payments, monies owed etc.

If that is not there then they cant

they can only collect the service charge itself

and that has to be by way of a correctly worded request/demand

they refer to clause 20 so that is what you should be looking at. I note that is says you indemnify them for their costs. Well thier costs are not the same as their charges so when a bandit dca charges £168 for nothing

then that along with their set fees are not actual losses borne as a result of your action or inaction.

have you dug into who owns the common part of the estate

as if that has changed hands

what notification has been sent out.

You have pointed out to things the management co have failed to do,

this may prevent them from taking action to recover any debts

you will need very specific advice on that as I think that it would not be a sufficient enough breach of duty to render anything else they say void as the terms further say that any surplus is merely placed into a holding account

EricsBrother - Thank you.

I have read, re-read and read again this section and I can not find anywhere that it says they can charge late payment fees or charges. It may be hidden in some legal jargon somewhere within it but I can not find anything that looks like it means such a thing.

Would you please be kind enough to read it and see if I am missing the point somewhere?

Note: where it has blank boxes is only to remove the identifying area.

Based on what you have said then, the correctly worded demand / request for payment would also need to be addressed to the right person and property holder?

I have all the requests from HML (in the other persons name as well) - nothing for 2015 & 2016 - only a request in 2017 in the right name (after I again told them) but for all the periods back to 2010.

So, just reading back through your comment and going through the PoC - they ref s20.45 which states "To indemnify the Management Company and the Landlord in respect of the (word removed) Management Charge proportion due payable by the property".

Does this mean that it is not the individual responsible on the account but the property? Also, surely this only means that the "management charge" is payable, not "charges or late payment fees".....?

I've copied this from : https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/service-charges-other-issues/

"Notice for payment of ground rent

The leaseholder is not liable to pay the ground rent unless the landlord has demanded it.

The demand must be in the prescribed form and must specify:

the amount of the rent due;

the date on which the leaseholder is liable to pay it, or if the demand is sent after the due date, the date on which it would have been payable under the terms of the lease.

The date specified for payment must not be less than 30 days or more than 60 days after date of service of the Notice, or before it is meant to be paid in accordance with the lease. It may be sent by post to the address of the house or flat to which it relates, unless the leaseholder has previously notified the landlord of an alternative address.

The Notice of Demand must also include:

the name of the leaseholder to whom the notice is given;

the period for which the rent demanded relates;

the name and address of the person or company to whom the payment is to be made;

the name and address of the landlord (or agent if applicable) by whom the notice is given;

certain supporting information, provided as notes to the Notice.

The landlord cannot begin any legal steps for recovery of the rent, including action for forfeiture and possession, unless he has previously served the demand in the correct format, given the correct period of notice, and the leaseholder has failed to respond."

By virtue of the above, prior to my notification to them again in early 2017 the Notice of Demand for payment has not met the "prescribed form" in that it was not sent to the name of the leaseholder. They were told, 4 times and still continued to send it to the wrong person.

So, my question is; If they fail to use the correct "prescribed format" and also fail to acknowledge and change the name on the account then any demands that are sent outwith the prescribed format are not valid?

In fact, just checked the paperwork and the last demand that HML sent to the wrongly named person was 18th November 2016

s20 Covenants in Full.pdf

you have quoted the law on ground rents, which is not the same as a management fee for the estate.

well, they are relying on the wording of sections 20.40, 20.41, 20.45, 21.1 and 21.2.

they are saying that by buying the property you have agreed to pay the charges and any of the management co's costs regardless of how they are arrived at (indemnifying them).

Now in 21.2 this is by agreement of the majority of the plot owners and they havent actually put the matter to the vote as far as one can tell.

However, this last clause is of less importance than the earlier ones or it would be higher on the list so it may be argued that all of the clauses above it have to be satisfied anyway and then any argument about what is covered in clause 21 is separate to that.

What it doesnt say is that you have to pay a sum that allows them to make even a penny profit out of this above their management fee but trying to estimate how much it actually cost to write a letter is very difficult when courts are concerned.

i would bet that they havent paid the dca any money at all but have made an arrangemant on a contingency fee basis.

if you could prove this then you can claim that they are not acting in good faith or to recover monies due but are attempting to abuse the court porcess by Champerty and Maintenance.

This will be damn hard to prove because neither company are goping to hand over their bank statements to prvoe od disprove that the money has actually changed hands.

Knowing this all stinks is very different to proving it all stinks.

There is nothing in the covenant that precludes them from taking action just because they havent actually billed you for the year they are claiming the money for, a leasehold flat would have different and stronger rights in this regard.

However, as some of the claim is for before you became the transferee the person giving you the place should have indemnified you against any claims resulting from their ownership or occupation.

produce such a letter from the deceased and the managemnt co will have to chase them.

Other than that it looks like you are stuck.

You could go back to the solicitor who did the original conveyancing and see what they say

but i wouldnt bank on them being too helpful as if they screwed up at the time they arent going to confess and pay your losses now in a hurry.

What to do?

argue that they have not previosuly supplied you with invoices and sent other invoices to the wrong person

the action breaches the pre-action protocols and say that if you had been invoiced you would have paid up straight away

(mention your multiple attempts to get an invoice) and therefore their claim for their costs are unjustified and are a penalty and not a genuine reflection of the cost of attempting to recover the monies due.

Likewise say that you know that dca's charge people £15 for sending a letter but then add any amount they think the recipient will pay to make a profit.

You do not believe that the dca has actually charged the management co this £196 and require proof that such a such has been expended or the matter should be considered as champerty.

Now this may get nowhere but you are in a situation where it will cost you no more to fight than to just pay up.

If the judge agrees with the abuse of PAP then they can reduce tha amount awarded by 50%

but I suspect that this will be applied to their costs and additional fees,

not the principal that is owed in this case.

Good luck

Did you actually find anything in the Covenants that allows them to charge additional charges such as arrears fees etc? Or does it simply come down to the fact that it "doesn't matter how it's arrived at"?

We'll be certainly fighting it, nothing to lose with that and it will continue to cost them money all the way with time and effort etc.....

I wonder if it may be possible to put them to strict proof to provide evidence of their charges and the way they are calculated?

I see the PAP breach as a way forward,

we actually don't contest paying the "Service Charge"

- even back to 2012 when the change happened

- but because they wouldn't move on the additional charges and the fact they were too stupid to change the name of the account we refused to pay on that basis.

Why would you pay for something that is not in your name

(I read somewhere that can be a defence?).

The Summons came to us on Tuesday 21st November 17,

I did the acknowledgement by email (it's been confirmed as received).

Am I right in saying it is 28 days from the date of Service which is stamped as the 22nd on the form?

Would you look over a defence before it being submitted for us?

Just had a thought from my days as a Police Officer.

If they have stated that they have charged £168 and invoiced for it and "if" I can prove they haven't then it is false accounting and it's a criminal offence.

I'll definitely be requesting strict proof of that payment being made by them.

Thoughts?

By issuing Court papers based on that it is also attempting to pervert the course of justice too.

33 days from the date on the claimform whereby that is ONE in the count.

was this a claimform pack from northants bulk or Salford court

does it have a password in the information box and make ref to MCOL website?

It is from Salford Court. It was paper only so had to be sent via email.

Also, just found out that Cuerden Grange Management Company are in a lot of arrears with the main agent for the area RMG.

They have a large shortfall apparently. - Came from the Chair of the residents association.

Thread moved to General Legal Issues

Regards

Andy

Hi, I'm getting a little confused with the dates for the submission of the defence.

The Claim Form is stamped 22nd November. The form says 28 days but I think DX mentioned 33.

I'm just trying to make sure I don't miss the dead line but also to try and leave it as close to Christmas as possible to delay them getting it. Just my little dig at the so and so's.

By my reckoning, if it is 33 days then Dec 24th would be the cut off? Would someone please just confirm for me?

Many thanks,

NN

by 4pm Friday 22nd

as day 33 falls on a w/end

Defence was filed on time and acknowledged by court via email.

A little confused again;

Today we receive a letter from the Court in relation to saying that it is now a defended case and there is a requirement that a directions questionnaire be completed and returned by 22/01/18.

It mentions in the letter that they have included a copy of the defence and also the DQ but nothing has come with it.

I’m wondering if this is a notice that has either been sent to their pathetic solicitors to remind them and we’ve been copied for information.

The way it reads suggests so as it states if nothing is heard the case may be struck out or judgement given.

This is completely different from the way it worked previously and how other cases appear to be handled from posts on here.

Should their solicitors not acknowledge the defence, take their clients instructions and act accordingly? Such as continue or not?

If they continue then a DQ would normally be issued in the forum of a booklet for us to serve on all parties?

I think a call to the Court to confirm first thing Monday but if you have any experience of such it would be helpful.

Thanks,

is it simply not just notification to you that they are telling the claimant its now a defenced claim

and as such they have 28 days from the filing of your defence to do 'something'

if they don't

it gets autostayed.

sounds normal to me

Sounds like the court has jumped the gun...as you state the claimant has 33 days to consider its position and inform the court if they wish to proceed...then DQs are issued.

Andy

Seems strange the court has sent the letter and it does tend to read like it is a reminder to them but I’m going to phone Mon am to find out what they’re playing at.

I can’t remember the exact date I filed the defence but it was a few days before it had to be in, despite wanting to hold off till last minute.

Actually just checked and it was filed and acknowledged on the 18th.

Check on line MCOL and see if the status is allocated

Sadly we can’t. It was a paper issued Summons and there is no MCOL password.

Everything has been filed by email. Bit of a pain to be fair.

Just a quick update.

Spoken to the Court this morning and the letter is a copy of the letter sent to the Claimant.

However, we must also comply with the DQ by the date specified on the letter so just downloading it now.

Seems a strange way of doing it but so be it.

Just to keep the thread up to date.

We sent off the DQ as requested and above.

Nothing heard from either the claimant or their legal team (PDC Law).

No paperwork received by us from any of them.

Yesterday (22nd Jan) was the cutoff.

Cut off for what?

The court letter stated that if the DQ was not received by the 22nd it would make a decision to either Strike Out the Case or make Judgement.

The letter specifically said that the case was a "defended" case and they must comply by the 22nd. They haven't done.

It does seem strange as it doesn't seem to be as per previous issues discussed on here. Normally the Claimant sends the DQ and the Defendant responds and serves the copy on all parties. It's not worked that way. They haven't sent a thing at all.

Well you have submitted your DQ and presumably the Claimant also by the stated date...so now you are awaiting your Notice of Allocation with the court directions.

"It does seem strange as it doesn't seem to be as per previous issues discussed on here. Normally the Claimant sends the DQ and the Defendant responds and serves the copy on all parties. It's not worked that way. They haven't sent a thing at all."

Not quite.....both parties submit their DQs to Court (and serve copies on each other) by the date stated and you both then get a Notice of Allocation

This is exactly what the letter states and it was dated 4th January 2018;

"Important Notice

If you do not comply with this notice the court will make such order as appears to be appropriate. This could include striking out the claim or entering judgement.

TAKE NOTICE THAT

1. This is now a defended claim.

The defendant has filed a defence, a copy of which is enclosed.

2. It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track.

If you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you must complete box C1 on the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and explain why.

3. You must by 22 January 2018 complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office (then gives the address for Salford) and serve copies on all other parties."

We complied and did that but the letter was addressed to the claimant and we were copied as part of the process (according to the lady from the court).

Silly question I guess

but given that we have entered a defence,

would the court be able to enter judgement without a hearing considering we have documentation and paperwork to show their failings?

They haven't served anything on us.

That's my point.