A supplier has written off a number of invoices as Bad Debts, and reclaimed the VAT element. He has then issued a claim for payment in Court at a later date, and added interest at well above base rate. Is this permissible?

Hi tobyjugg2, I appreciate your comments, BUT, throughout this whole argument Council have been "Over Authoritative", seeming to make the rules up as they go along to suit their own purposes. They have ignored Planning Law, done things that are outside their power and authority to do, attempted a "Cover Up" by sending untruthful memo to Land Registry Departments, and also committed perjury in Court over this and a few other matters I am aware of by failing to reveal the full facts. There is such a thing in Law as "Lying by Omission" which Council are CERTAINLY guilty of. I really think it is time to stop being polite and apologetic for asking the questions I raised, and to CONFRONT them with the absolute and indisputable proof of their mistakes, and demand and explanation, an apology, and admission of the facts. I KNOW I am right, I just need Council to admit to the facts. Once that is done there will a case for me to seek compensation, and not only that, perhaps a number of previous occupants of properties on this site that were illegally evicted in the past over a period of more than 10 years will also have cause to seek compensation! Sorry if I sound belligerent and aggressive, but Council's attitude and approach over the last 10 years has made me feel that way.

I have sent the following letter to Council, Head of Legal Services, we shall see if they respond at all and what they might say. Ms Elizabeth Dunstan Cornwall Council East Wing Camborne One Stop Shop Delcoath Avenue Camborne TR14 8SX 15th July 2015 Further Indisputable Argument and Fact Dear Ms Dunstan, You will be well aware of my long and protracted arguments about the “Residential Status” of my property. I have always maintained that “Full Residential Use”, with no period when the property must be left vacant, should be permitted. All your arguments to the contrary have been based on the conditions imposed under Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP which you maintain are valid and enforceable. However, some facts that I was not previously aware of have come to light which prove beyond doubt that the “Holiday Use Only” condition contained within 6/86/1533/OPP was never valid or legally enforceable. Let me detail the history and agreements in place over the land on which my property stands. 1. Section 25 Agreement dated 3rd May 1960, which under Paragraph 2, Item 1(i) states:- “shall be used for residential purposes except during the period from 1st day of March to the 31st day of October (both days inclusive) in any one year”. “Residential Permission” is therefore permitted from and including the dates from 1st day of September to 28th/29th February (whichever is applicable if it be a leap year) each year. 2. Section 37 Agreement dated 26th April 1971 replaces the Section 25 Agreement. It states under Paragraph 3(i):- No property:- “shall be used for residential purposes during the period from the 2nd day of January to the 28th day of February in any one year”. This leaves “Residential Permission” in place for the period 1st March in one year to 1st January in the following year (both dates inclusive). Note:- Such Agreement cannot be rescinded. No Local Planning Authority has the power to rescind this Agreement. In 1986 a new developer applied for Planning Permission to build bigger and better bungalows on the same land covered by the Section 37 Agreement. Permission 6/86/1533/OOP was granted but now included a “Holiday Use Only” condition – which is contrary to and more onerous than previous agreements for development on this land. It is fact that Local Authorities are not permitted to introduce new and more onerous conditions in any Planning Permission where previous Agreements are in place. Local Authorities ARE empowered to “Lift” restrictions, but ARE NOT empowered to impose new and more onerous conditions. However, this is exactly what Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP sought to do. It would seem that some years later Council may have realised their errors insofar as Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP contained the new and more onerous condition of “Holiday Use Only” and was not legally imposable in view of the prior existing Section 37 Agreement which allowed “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year. An attempt was made to rectify this and make the 86 Planning Permission legally enforceable. 3. Planning and Development Committee Meeting 4th March 1991. At this meeting a resolution was floored and passed with the apparent intention of rescinding the Section 37 Agreement. Something which the Officers at that meeting did not have the power or authority to do. However, the actual wording of the resolution which was floored and passed was:- “Note 8. St Merryn Holiday Village – Section 37 Agreement. RESOLVED THAT the Section 37 Agreement in respect of the above prohibiting the use of the properties between 2nd January – 28th February be rescinded accordingly”. Note:- In this manner the Section 37 Agreement was which allowed “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year was NOT rescinded (They didn’t have the power to do that anyway), but what was achieved was to “Lift” the periods when the properties COULD NOT be used for “Residential Purposes”. The resolution says:- “in respect of the above prohibiting the use of the properties between 2nd January – 28th February be rescinded accordingly”. I repeat that Local Council DO have the power and authority to “Lift” restrictions, but NOT to impose new and more onerous conditions. Thus by passing this resolution in the Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th March 1971, they permitted “Residential Use” all year round. NEVERTHELESS It became obvious the intention was to rescind the Section 37 Agreement altogether from what followed:- 4. Internal Memorandum dated 6th March 1991 from Head of Legal Services to Land Charges Department. Which says:- “ St Merryn Holiday Village - As you are aware, we have already cancelled the 1960 Planning Agreement relating to St Merryn Holiday Village. I would be grateful if you would also note on the Register that the Planning and Development Committee on the 4th March, 1991 resolved to cancel the Agreement dated the 26th April, 1971 and also note your copy of the Agreement accordingly annexing this memorandum to it confirming that it has been cancelled”. Signed by:- Sally Lloyd-Jones (Solicitor) Note:- This appears to be deception. The Section 37 Agreement dated 26th April 1971 had not been cancelled. Sally Lloyd-Jones was well aware that all that had been achieved was to relieve the periods covered by the Section 37 Agreement when “Residential Permission” was not permitted. By her actions ALL the properties covered by the original Section 37 Agreement of 26th April 1971 now enjoy “Residential Permission” all year round. But this Memo states that the Agreement dated 26th April 1971 (The Section 37 Agreement) had been cancelled. Simply not true! I now draw your attention to the 1989 Appeal against periods when the properties must be left vacant. This appeal was against Permission No:- 43706/C. Planning Permission 43706/C is directly linked to the Section 37 Agreement. North Cornwall District Council requested that Appeal be heard under the direction of an Inspector. Inspector D. A. Hill was appointed to hear the Appeal. The Inspector’s ruling was:- “The condition attached to the amended outline planning permission 43706/C is simply a seasonal restriction which prohibits the occupation of the bungalows in January and February. There is no holiday use only condition attached to this permission”. Consequently, the Inspector did not believe that he was able to introduce a holiday use only condition. He ruled:- “As the condition which is the subject of these appeals does not refer to holiday use, to introduce such a holiday use condition would be more onerous on the appellants and I do not regard that as a course of action which would be legitimately open to me”. This is a ruling by an Inspector that was appointed by Council to hear the Appeal. The outcome was that he allowed the “Lifting” of the periods when the properties could not be used for “Residential Purposes”, but at the same time he did not allow the imposition of a new and more onerous condition of “Holiday Use Only” as requested by Council. His comment was that “I do not regard that as a course of action which would be legitimately open to me”. Given this ruling in 1989 by an Inspector appointed by Council to rule on the matter, it makes nonsense of the introduction of a “Holiday Use Only” condition in 6/86/1533/OOP. It was not an option that was legitimately open to Council Planning at the time, as proven by the Inspector’s ruling some 3 years later. Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP was not imposable in respect of the “Holiday Use Only” condition. Council had no power to introduce such new and more onerous condition, as proven by the Inspector’s ruling in 1989. Now I ask some serious questions to which I will demand a response in writing:- a) Given the above unquestionable and indisputable evidence, will you now admit that my property does have, and has always had “Residential Permission” with no period when it must be left vacant since 4th March 1971? b) Will you confirm that Ms Sally Lloyd-Jones who is a qualified solicitor and was Head of Legal Services at North Cornwall District Council at the time should have been aware that she did not have the authority to cancel/rescind the Section 37 Agreement of 4th March 1971 in that Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th April 1991? c) Will you admit that the Memorandum from Ms Sally Lloyd-Jones dated 6th March 1991 was misleading, and sought to claim that the Section 37 Agreement of 26th April 1971 had been cancelled/rescinded – when it clearly had not? d) Will you admit that in recent Enforcement Orders issued by Cornwall Council Enforcement Officers stating that there was a “Contravention of Planning Conditions” at a number of properties here was un-founded? Especially as one such claim for “Enforcement” was challenged and then withdrawn “Case Closed” on the grounds that the original Section 37 Agreement of 26th April 1971, and the “Lifting” of restrictions in the Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th April 1991 was accepted as valid and in force – thus giving that property “Full Residential Permission” all year round. If it applies to that property, it applies to mine! e) Will you now admit that the “Holiday Use Only” condition contained within Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP was never legally imposable as it was more onerous than previous Agreements which Council had no authority or power to cancel/rescind? f) Will Council Planning Department now inform Land Registry Departments to reflect that my property has the benefit of “Residential Permission” all year round and confirm this in writing for my attention? Regardless of all previous arguments about the status of my property, the above is indisputable and irrefutable evidence that we have “Residential Permission” all year round. I want the questions answered in writing, and recorded on my Land Title and the Land Registers both local and national. It remains at my discretion whether I seek compensation for the unnecessary stress, inconvenience and duress I was put under, and whether or not any action should be taken against Officers of the then North Cornwall District Council, or Cornwall Council as is now – for attempting to enforce restrictions that are not lawfully enforceable, and for claiming that Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP is valid and enforceable in full when it clearly is not. Please note that I have copies of ALL the relevant documents:- i) Section 37 Agreement of 4th March 1971 ii) Notes of Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th April 1991 iii) Memo from Sally Lloyd-Jones to Land Registry Department of 6th April 1991 iv) Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP Signed:- Any comments from anyone would be appreciated.

tobyjuggs2 I've already done pretty much all you suggest. Complained direct to the Council and to my MP, who simply forwarded my complaint to the Council who then gave me an inane response - something like "we have already expended too much time on this issue". Please refer to previous correspondence. All of which focused on the 86 Planning Permission which I still hold was illegal and unenforceable in the first place. But Council will not admit that. Now, given the latest information I have to hand, I have proof that Council acted illegally by trying to impose new and more onerous conditions on planning permission. So I have taken your suggestion to heart, and have now submitted a complaint to the Local Council Ombudsman. We shall see how they respond to that - I have been promised a reply within 5 working days. I will keep you informed of the progress. Many thanks for your advice so far. Wheels60

To Tobyjugg2 Yes I saw that, here in Cornwall they seem to be building more and more on Greenfield Sites and not using Brownfield. In my case my property stands on what used to be an airfield in WW2, on this site they seem to allow building for "Holiday Use" - and bear in mind these are "Permanent Structures" built to a standard under Building Regs for full time occupation, but Council Planners will not permit Residential Use. Makes no sense. At one stage when I asked for Residential Use, they said it could not be permitted as they would not allow such development in a Rural Area!!! Where is the logic?

Hi tobyjugg2, I totally agree that local planning authorities seem to be mindless in every aspect of their considerations and decisions. One has to wonder if their decisions are based on logic (which they seem to lack) - or probably and more likely on the possibility of some personal gain. I don't trust ANY of them

Many thanks stevemLS, Your reply leaves me a little confused what does "the council can resolve not to enforce conditions of planning consent, but that would not prevent it from later resolving to remind that former non enforcement resolution". actually mean? In my case I have proof that the "Holiday Use Only" condition in Council's 1986 Planning Permission was NEVER legally imposable in the first place. And that Council acted outside their authority by attempting to cancel the original Section 37 Agreement which permitted "Residential Occupation" - then covering that up by memo to their Local Land Registry. Council have now admitted that a recent "Enforcement Notice" issued on a property similar to mine and developed under the same Planning Permission has been withdrawn and case closed on the grounds that the original Section 37 Agreement, and the amendment made to it which lifted the period when it could not be used for "Residential Purposes" are valid and in force. But Council refuse to put that in writing. I have asked Council to confirm that if their decision applies on that dwelling, then it also applies to mine - but they seem unwilling to respond. Surely there must be some way to get Council to admit without going to the horrendous expense of asking for a Judicial Review on the matter. It seems to be so unfair that someone in a position such as I am now should have to commit to HUGE legal expense just to prove that that what I claim is right and just? The Law is an ass and you seem not to able to get justice unless you can pay for it. That's not right. Bob Watkins

I am 67 years old and severely disabled as a result of Polio contracted at age 9 Months. For the past 25 years I have been confined to a wheelchair full time. For this reason I sought and bought a bungalow on a flat and level site so that it could be easily adapted to meet my special needs. The bungalow which I now own and occupy is built on part of a site which was formerly an American Navy Air Force Base during World War 2. There are in excess of 150 similar such properties on this site. I bought the bungalow in 2002, and shortly after was fortunate enough to be given a “Disabled Facilities Grant” by the Local Council to install ramps to facilitate easy entry from the outside, adapt the bathroom, and install central heating. One of the conditions of that grant was that I remain “Resident” for at least 5 years. Therefore it came as something as a surprise when within a year I received an Enforcement Notice from the Local Council saying that I had to vacate on the grounds that I was contravening one of the conditions of the 1986 Planning Permission under which my property was developed which stated the property was “Holiday Use Only” and could NOT be utilised for residential purposes. Of course I fought the case which went all the way to Crown Court in December 2005. At that hearing the Judge threw the case out saying that the action taken by the Council was an abuse of the legal system and a waste of public money. Council did not really accept the Judge’s ruling and still held that the Enforcement Order was valid. However, Council did decide not to take any further action against me personally, but warned that if I ever vacated for any reason, they would take similar action against the next occupants if they deemed it necessary to maintain the conditions of the 1986 Planning Permission. Following that, and for almost 10 years, Council took no enforcement action against the many other occupants who had taken up residence in similar properties to mine developed under the same Planning Permission containing the “Holiday Use Only” condition. Until very recently that is, when they began issuing Enforcement Notices against a number of other properties whose occupants have been long term residents here. Since my case of 2005, I and a number of other interested parties have continued our research. What we have uncovered is quite interesting:- 1. In April of 1971, there was a Section 37 Agreement granted on all this land which was formerly an American Navy Air Force base. This Agreement permitted the development of “Dwellings” amongst other structures, but stipulated that the “Dwellings” may not be used for “Residential Purposes” for the period from 2nd January to 28th February in any given year. Note:- “Residential Use” was permitted for the remainder of the year – that is from March to December inclusive. My understanding of such Agreements is that they cannot be rescinded at the whim of a Local Council Planning Department without obtaining a “Deed of Release”. Something which to my certain knowledge has never been done. However, what Local Council Planning Departments do have the power and authority to do is “Lift” restrictions on such agreements. Some development took place and was successful, the properties sold well. Some years later, a new developer took possession of the land, and seeing the success the previous developer had enjoyed, that developer applied for Planning Permission to build bigger and better bungalows on the same land covered by the Section 37 Agreement. 2. In 1986, Planning Permission was granted to build the bigger and better bungalows, BUT, within that Permission the new and more onerous condition of “Holiday Use Only” was introduced. A good number of the bigger and better bungalows were constructed under this Planning Permission, mine being one of those. Note:- Council either did not realise or chose to ignore the previously existing Section 37 Agreement which was still in force and does allow “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year. Some years later, Council may have realised that the 1986 Planning Permission was flawed because of the previously existing Section 37 Agreement. 3. Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th March 1991. Here a resolution was floored. The intention was apparently to rescind the Section 37 Agreement, but they did not have the power or authority to do that. At that meeting, the resolution that was floored was worded in such a way that all it achieved was to relieve the restriction as to when the properties could not be used for residential purposes. This much was within their power to do – that is – relieve restrictions. Nevertheless, two days after that meeting, a Memo was sent to the Council Land Registry Department saying that the Agreement of April 1971 (Section 37 Agreement), allowing “Residential Use”, had been cancelled. I have copies of the notes of that meeting, including the wording of the resolution that was passed, and the memo to the Land Registry Department. Note:- There seems to be deliberate deception by the Officers involved. Planning and Development Committee did not have the power to rescind/cancel the Section 37 Agreement, so they amended it, then informed the Local Land Registry that it had been cancelled. This was a lie. Shortly after that Planning and Development Meeting, Council began issuing numerous “Enforcement Notices” on the grounds of “Contravention of Planning Conditions” under the 1986 Planning Permission, causing considerable worry, stress, inconvenience and financial duress to many people. Many, if not all of these actions by Council were successful, lots of families were evicted. Of late, since Council began issuing Enforcement Notices again based on contravention of conditions contained within the 1986 Planning Permission – some of these have been challenged by owners and occupiers of the properties concerned. We have it on record that Council have admitted that the Section 37 Agreement is still in force and has never been rescinded. Now, one of the new Enforcement Orders has been challenged by the owner of the property who pointed out that according to the original Section 37 Agreement of April 1971, and the “Lifting” of restrictions in the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991, the property in question had the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. Council admitted in a telephone conversation that this was the position, and that the “Enforcement Order” had been withdrawn and the case closed. However, they refused to put this in writing. This is of great interest. Why do Council refuse to put this in writing? The theory is that if Council admit the Section 37 Agreement allowing “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year is still in force on all this land, then the 1986 Planning Permission attempting to introduce a more onerous “Holiday Use Only” condition is unenforceable. That would effectively mean that all the successful actions Council took for eviction on the grounds of “Contravention of Planning Conditions” under the 1986 Planning Permission, were in fact “Illegal Evictions”! It would also mean that following the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991 when restrictions were lifted as to the periods when the properties could not be used for residential purposes – all 150+ properties have the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. So my position and question is this:- I have been arguing with Council over the years on many different levels and aspects of Planning Law that my property has the benefit of “Full Residential Permission”. Not least because it would significantly increase its value and make it easier to sell if I ever decide to re-locate. All of my arguments have been dismissed as irrelevant as in their view the 1986 Planning Permission stands and the “Holiday Use Only” condition is valid and enforceable. Now, of late, I learn that the original Section 37 Agreement allowing “Residential Occupation” for 10 months of the year still stands. I also know that the restriction on the 2 months of the year when it could not be used for “Residential Occupation” was lifted in the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991. Thus allowing “Full Residential Permission” all year round. This means that the “Holiday Use Only” condition in the 1986 Planning Permission was never valid or imposable in full in the first place, and that since March 1991, well before taking me to Court, my property had the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. Council Officials were well aware of that before taking me to Court. My problem is how to get Council to admit that, put it in writing, and have that recorded in the Local Land Registry, and the National Land Registry?

Hi Bazooka Boo, I agree entirely with your statement that these threats are psychological rather than actual. However I was always taught that the worst thing to do about anything was nothing. So I always respond. I gets tiresome sometimes as I keep writing the same things over and over again. Have long since stopped feeling threatened or intimidated, and learned that in most cases these people tell lies about what they can or cannot do.

Many thanks all, especially Rebel - we shall see what happens.

No they have not backed off, received another letter today. Second one this month. I have responded once again pointing out that we have an agreement, and that I have complied with it and can prove that. I have accused them of harassment and told them that if it continues, I will take the appropriate steps. Trouble is, I don't know what those steps are, and that's why I now ask for advice.

Debt originates from circa 2005, was dealt with under a Debt Management Program for a number of years, then I discovered the "Inalienable Benefits" rule and I took over early this year. Cabot have confirmed that they are receiving payments as these show on their statements.

Original debt was Barclaycard. DCA is now Cabot Financial (Europe Ltd).

I have several creditors with whom I have come to an arrangement due to my circumstances. My only income is in the form of "Inalienable Benefits", and all have agreed to accept £1.00 per calendar month which I pay by standing order. However, one is giving me a problem. For the last three months they have written to me claiming that I have failed to comply with the agreement, and that they now demand payment in full immediately. I have responded explaining the position and enclosing a copy of their letter which states they have accepted my offer. They have not replied to any of my correspondence and continue to send these threatening letters monthly. What should I do next?

I have been having a problem with Reliable (Classic Confidence/J D Williams). My wifes account got out of hand and we could not meet the payments. Eventually I wrote and asked them for copy of the signed agreement - what they sent me was one they had filled in themselves. I wrote back and told them this was not good enough, and that without a signed agreement they could not take us to Court for recovery of the alleged debt. They wrote back to agree, and said that all collection activity would cease. There was a threat that we would be reported to a Credit Agency, which did not worry us as we are already listed for other matters. All seemed fine, but two weeks later the telephone calls started again. I told them about the letter from Classic saying all collection activity would stop, but they said that did not apply as we had not responded. So I told them NO MORE CALLS!! In writing only please - now I will respond saying that they refused our offer, have agreed they cannot go to Court for recovery, and that we intend to pay nothing and let them report us to whatever agency they choose to.

My Debt Management Boys say that we are absolutely right. Benefits such as mine are "Inalienable". Should not be paying more than £1 per month to each Creditor. So WHY Oh WHy didn't the Debt advisers company tell me that 5 years ago? Been paying £127 per month for the last 5 years!!!

Not on mortgage payments, but can get some help with interest from Social Security. Ask about "Mortgage Relief" and help with the payment of the interest on the mortgage. It helped for me. SS pay about one third of my monthly payments for me.

I get some support to pay the interest on my mortgage, it pays about a third of it, and it helps a lot. Ask Social Security about it. I think it's called "Mortgage Relief" or something like that. But my Mortgage Co are not helpfull at all, they would not convert to an "Interest Only" policy

If on Benefits alone, and that is your only income, you will qualify for full relief on Council Tax. It's not "Housing Benefit", it's "Council Tax Relief". I get it 100%, I don't pay any.

Wow, that could be very useful for me. Please give me some proof (Legislation) that I can use to achieve this.

Hi, Just found something that might be of interest. If your only income is Benefits, and you are in debt, Something might help. See "Social Security Administration Act 1992, Chapter 5 - Section 187" It says that certain benefits are "inalienable", i.e. cannot be used for any purpose other than that for which they were intended. It further says that such benefits CANNOT be used to settle debts or charges and that any agreement for that can be "Voided". Section 187 of the "Social Security Administration Act 1992" says that any benefit under Section 122 (Parts II to V) of the "Social Security Benefits and Contributions Act 1992" qualifies as "inalienable" . That covers most benefits. So, correct me if I am wrong, but, it seems to me that if your only income is in the form of "Qualifying Benefits" under those rules, any Creditors CANNOT demand payment for debts or charges from that income.

I, along with a dozen or so others in similar circumstances, was being sued for service/maintenance charges for using an access road and some leisure ground belonging to another to access my property. I agreed that some payment was due, but nowhere near what the land owner was asking. I took legal advice and we went to Court, where I lost initially, but was granted permission to appeal by the Appeals Court. The Claimant then offered "Mediation" via CEDR prior to the Appeal Court hearing, at which we came to an agreement. I cannot disclose the terms due to the confidentiality clause. But bear in mind that this agreement is solely between me and the Claimant. The Claimant and their solicitors are now saying that this agreement precludes my solicitors from acting for any of the others. My question is simply, can they do this? Surely I would not have had the power or authority to prevent my solicitors from acting for any other party, provided of course that they did not break the confidentiality clause of the agreement that I had signed. Naturally the others now wish to seek legal representation of their own (they had none prior), and surely there is nothing to prevent them using the solicitor of their choice.

I had something similar with Natwest. This was a personal loan secured against my home. It was a 7 year loan. We got into financial difficulties and could not make the payments. The PPI kicked in and made payments, but it did not cover the full period of the loan, leaving 24 payments still due after the PPI cover ran out. Natwest then began taking money from my personal account which had been closed for several years, against my instructions on closing that account that no more withdrawals could be made for any reason. By doing that they managed to turn a £5000 debt into £65,000 by charging punitive interest rates and charges on the personal account for exceeding the overdraft limit etc. Thanks to this forum I used one of the "Standard Letters" asking for a copy of the original agreement signed by me. They were unable to provide such document and even tried to trick me into going to the bank to sign new paperwork. Without this they could not proceed, and yes "Green and Co" and "Irwin Mitchel" were involved. It's a long shot, but might be worth a try. It worked for me. Without written proof of the agreement, they could not take me to Court.

Point is Buzby, that maintenance to be supplied WAS specified, and neither the previous owner or the new owner has supplied that maintenance.

Many freehold properties exist here where I live, but the access roads and some common ground nearby are privately owned. These areas were bought by new owner in 2000 from previous owner who went bankrupt almost 20 years ago. Previous owner had set up covenants in conveyances to pay for maintenance, but never did any. New owner is now issuing County Court Claims for maintenance based on the old covenants, however, for the most part he has not carried out any of the maintenance specified in those covenants, and almost all of the recreational facilities that once existed, are no longer present. Is there a simple and cost effective way to counter this?