Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article

ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  

Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 

Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.

It was sent from [email protected] and was signed ‘Claims Team’