hearing thursday - Premier Estates LTD . taking 70yrs olds to court about old pipework

[BazzaS]

Sorry to come back to this but it is relevant: do they own the freehold of the flat or a leasehold?. If freehold, does the "lease" relate to the common areas of the building?.

[Benny1973]

Sorry to come back to this but it is relevant: do they own the freehold of the flat or a leasehold?. If freehold, does the "lease" relate to the common areas of the building?.

 

I believe the flat is leasehold

[Benny1973]

Sorry to come back to this but it is relevant: do they own the freehold of the flat or a leasehold?. If freehold, does the "lease" relate to the common areas of the building?.

 

They own the inside of the property out right but the outside walls belong to the development as far as I understand it

[Benny1973]

They own the inside of the property out right but the outside walls belong to the development as far as I understand it

 

so the Pipe effectively goes from the boiler in their kitchen which they own to the outside external wall, which the development own and down. So I guess from freehold to leasehold

[callum1999]

They have a building regulations compliance certificate and a quotation document compiled by the installers for the benefit of the previous tenant both dated 2010. They have a current and dated picture of the same boiler in the kitchen. They also have 2 emails from the estates manager at premier one that states " I can see the previous owners were persued to remove the pipework but this was unsuccessful" another that says " I do sympathise that you personally haven't installed the boiler and associated pipework"

 

So in theory, there is not one strand of evidence that they have in their possession that proves what they are alleging, is remotely true.

 

Add to that the emails sympathising with your parents that they have not "personally" installed the boiler and associated pipework, they are trying it on, but there own evidence will show this.

 

You state your parents have suffered from stress and all the inconvenience from this, i am not surprised, this firm and like a lot of people are purely motivated by greed and money, and they are good at targeting the most vulnerable.

 

Get your parents, if they have not already done so, to see their doctor and document the problems this is causing to their health, very important.

[BazzaS]

Get your parents, if they have not already done so, to see their doctor and document the problems this is causing to their health, very important.

 

Only useful if you can prove illness as a direct result, not "stress" or "stress related illness", unless there is a diagnosed psychiatric illness like depression or PTSD.

There can be no claim for just "stress" or "anxiety" alone, and it would be almost impossible to show eg angina or a heart attack was caused by the management company's actions rather than by intervening events.

[Benny1973]

Only useful if you can prove illness as a direct result, not "stress" or "stress related illness", unless there is a diagnosed psychiatric illness like depression or PTSD.

There can be no claim for just "stress" or "anxiety" alone, and it would be almost impossible to show eg angina or a heart attack was caused by the management company's actions rather than by intervening events.

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on the pipe issue Bazza ?

[BazzaS]

What are your thoughts on the pipe issue Bazza ?

 

I don't know enough about the issues / the terms of the lease to know if the management company has to go after the previous freeholder or if they can go after your parents.

If it was all leasehold they could just say to the management company "fix it then!" but don't have this option as freeholders.

[steampowered]

"carried out structural alterations without first getting consent of the claimant and failed to pay the service charge"

 

6 is "Not to appropriate any facility or obstruct any area of the commonwealth parts" re the pipework

 

11 is "The defendants have installed pipework outside premises maiming the development and obstructing the communal parts"

 

They didn't install it the previous owners did

I would have thought pointing out that the boiler was installed before your parents moved in should defeat a claim based on the above. Presumably you have made this very clear in your defence.

[SuperVillain]

I agree with steampowered the pipe issue seems fairly straightforward based on what's been said here. Given the nature of the defence I would have thought that if your parents make the offer as suggested by BazzaS they might take it and call it a day.

[Benny1973]

I would have thought pointing out that the boiler was installed before your parents moved in should defeat a claim based on the above. Presumably you have made this very clear in your defence.

 

Yes its been made very clear. This is why they then wanted to alter their claim to include "my parents OR previous owners" What would you make of the fact that they then wanted to alter their claim having seen the defence, to include that it now was "my parents OR previous owners" in their claim and then had the cheek to try and get my parents to try and foot the bill ? Would this look bad on them ? They obviously know by originally getting it wrong and accusing my parents of maiming the building and failing to foot the £25 or ask permission they haven't really got a case. Presumbably this is what the management company told them. False info.

[Benny1973]

"Without Prejudice Save as to Costs

 

Dear Sir & Madam

 

We refer to your recent communications with our Client’s agent.

 

We understand that you have indicated that you wish to resolve the Claim. For the reasons set out in our earlier correspondence, both we and our client are confident that our client will be successful in its claim in the above matter. Nonetheless, our client is mindful of the obligations on parties, under the Civil Procedure Rules, to try to resolve their disputes and of the potential benefits to the parties, in terms of costs and interest, of making a settlement offer. Our client is, therefore, prepared to make the settlement offer set out below.

 

TERMS OF OUR CLIENT'S FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OFFER

 

Our client hereby offers the following terms of settlement:

 

· This offer is made in full and final settlement of the whole of our client's claim referred to in the particulars of claim dated 7th June 2016, including any actual or proposed counterclaim.

· You to pay our Client’s costs of this matter, on the standard basis, to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

· 14 days after you accept this settlement offer in writing, you will:-

1. Pay to our Client the sum of £1,239.12 via electronic transfer into our Client account quoting reference 45/C using the account details set out in the attached methods of payment form.

2. Provide a written admission pursuant to section 168 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 as to your breach of paragraphs 6 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease.

 

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ACCEPT THIS SETTLEMENT OFFER

 

If you do not accept this settlement offer, we reserve the right to bring the contents of this letter to the attention of the court on the issue of costs. If you fail to do better than this settlement offer at trial, we intend to seek an order requiring you to pay our Client’s costs on the standard basis until 21 days after the date of this Offer and thereafter on the indemnity basis, together with interest on those costs until payment.

 

We await hearing from you.

 

" My parents have used this letter in the defence - Are they allowed to ? Leitch tried to bully them into not using it by saying they would apply to the court to have their entire defence struck out if they used it because it was a "without predjudiced" letter. The service charge offer was fine until part 2 where they wanted them to provide written admission to installing the pipework. This was intended to deceive them in my opinion. I read that them making a "without predjudiced offer" can look bad on them as they are clearly trying to trick my parents and are using a tactic they wouldn't want a court to know about. Without predjuciced can be used when making a "reasonable offer" of settlement therefore I would say this is an unreasonable offer and hence this communication could be used against them ??

[Benny1973]

Since this looks like it is fast-track or multi-track, and the reason why your parent's have been witholding the service charge has now been removed, your parent's should consider making a Calderbank offer (like a part 36 offer, but not meeting the stricter formalities of a Part 36 offer) to settle the service charge.

 

They could explain in it that the service charge was witheld due to the issue of the bricks, and now that has gone they are happy to pay the service charge, and in return all legal action should cease, with each side bearing their own costs.

If they admit that the service charge is now due, what do they have to lose by such an offer?.

If the offer isn't accepted and it goes to court they'd likely have to pay the service charge anyway, now the bricks issue is resolved, and making such an offer might protect them from costs implications, especially if they were then only found liable for the service charge part of the claim.

 

They shouldn't make a Part 36 offer, as if they did so they'd be accepting responsibility for the legal costs up to that point.

 

Bearing in mind their case management conference is tomorrow I would like them to take an offer with them. Not sure they will use it but would it be acceptable to be something like this ? " Without prejudice save as to costs Dear Sir & Madam The original reason for us merely withholding the service charge, the dumping of bricks outside our property, ruining our quiet enjoyment, as set out in the lease has now been removed. Based on this and being mindful of the obligations on parties, under the Civil Procedure Rules, to try to resolve their disputes and of the potential benefits to the parties, in terms of costs and interest, of making a settlement offer. We are, therefore, prepared to make the settlement offer set out below. TERMS OF OUR Full and final SETTLEMENT OFFER We hereby offer the following terms of settlement: · This offer is made in full and final settlement · All legal action to cease · Each side to bear their own costs in this matter · 14 days after you accept this settlement offer in writing, we will:- 1. Pay to your Client the sum of via electronic transfer into our Client account quoting reference 45/C using the account details set out in the attached methods of payment form. We await hearing from you. Yours truly" Any alterations or advice ?

[BazzaS]

Don't forget to highlight that your parents previously made an attempt to settle the outstanding service charge once the bricks were removed, and that it was declined by the management company (your parents being referred to JB Leitch) ..... As this shows they were always willing to pay once the bricks were removed, and makes the other side look unreasonable for declining the payment.

[BazzaS]

"Without Prejudice Save as to Costs

 

 

 

" My parents have used this letter in the defence - Are they allowed to ? Leitch tried to bully them into not using it by saying they would apply to the court to have their entire defence struck out if they used it because it was a "without predjudiced" letter. The service charge offer was fine until part 2 where they wanted them to provide written admission to installing the pipework. This was intended to deceive them in my opinion. I read that them making a "without predjudiced offer" can look bad on them as they are clearly trying to trick my parents and are using a tactic they wouldn't want a court to know about. Without predjuciced can be used when making a "reasonable offer" of settlement therefore I would say this is an unreasonable offer and hence this communication could be used against them ??

 

It can't be used against them, as your parents are free to accept the offer or not (and free to take legal advice on the offer and its implications).

 

No, your parents are not allowed to refer to the offer in the court proceedings until a judgement has been reached and costs are being considered, as it is "without prejudice, save as to costs".

[Benny1973]

Don't forget to highlight that your parents previously made an attempt to settle the outstanding service charge once the bricks were removed, and that it was declined by the management company (your parents being referred to JB Leitch) ..... As this shows they were always willing to pay once the bricks were removed, and makes the other side look unreasonable for declining the payment.

 

 

 

like this ?

 

 

without prejudice Save as to Costs

 

 

Dear Sir & Madam

The original reason for us, merely withholding the service charge, the dumping of bricks outside our property, ruining our quiet enjoyment, as set out in the lease has now been removed.

Despite having a previous attempt to settle the outstanding service charge once the bricks were removed, declined by Premier Estates and being referred to JB Leitch solicitors, we are prepared to make another offer.

Based on this and being mindful of the obligations on parties, under the Civil Procedure Rules, to try to resolve their disputes and of the potential benefits to the parties, in terms of costs and interest, of making a settlement offer. We are, therefore, prepared to make the settlement offer set out below.

TERMS OF OUR Full and final SETTLEMENT OFFER

We hereby offer the following terms of settlement:

· This offer is made in full and final settlement

· All legal action to cease

· Each side to bear their own costs in this matter

· 14 days after you accept this settlement offer in writing, we will :-

 

1. Pay to your Client the sum of the outstanding Service Charge into your Client account quoting reference 45/C.
   

We await hearing from you.

Yours truly

[BazzaS]

Worth stating the precise sum to be paid, so there can be no doubt.

[steampowered]

Do you need to say anything about the boiler? Such as explaining in the body of the text that the boiler was installed prior to your parents moving in, and adding a statement at the bottom that no further action is to be taken in respect of the boiler?

[Benny1973]

Hi

 

The case managment hearing went ahead.

 

They basically bought a barrister and 4 other people. They said they wanted to end the issue today and made the extremely generous offer of my parents footing their costs now 5k and repairing the pipework. An offer far worse than their original one by email months ago !

 

My parents laughed at this - and the judge advised them to get a couple of hours legal advice.

 

The case is due now at the end of November

 

They said they would go away and come back with another settlement offer, However my parents now want to contact a solicitor and make their offer similar as the one advised above so the other side know what kind of settlement they are looking at

 

Does anyone know of a good solicitor in the Birmingham area who would be skilled in issues at hand here ?

[BazzaS]

Hi

 

The case managment hearing went ahead.

 

They basically bought a barrister and 4 other people. They said they wanted to end the issue today and made the extremely generous offer of my parents footing their costs now 5k and repairing the pipework. An offer far worse than their original one by email months ago !

 

My parents laughed at this - and the judge advised them to get a couple of hours legal advice.

 

The case is due now at the end of November

 

They said they would go away and come back with another settlement offer, However my parents now want to contact a solicitor and make their offer similar as the one advised above so the other side know what kind of settlement they are looking at

 

Does anyone know of a good solicitor in the Birmingham area who would be skilled in issues at hand here ?

 

Have they actually withdrawn the previous offer (in writing)?. If the new offer is worse and they haven't withdrawn the previous offer, that is odd, as your parents could still accept the previous offer! .... (not that they "should" without the legal advice they are going to take, but "could").

 

It is against site rules to recommend a firm, so that won't happen publicly. Someone might say "I found firm X really helpful" privately in PM, but then you have no way of knowing how reliable the info is (unlike public advice, which gets reviewed by anyone who wants to!).

 

Birmingham has masses of solicitors. They key will be if your parents want a "big name" firm, one that isn't necessarily massively well known, but has a good reputation, or the convenience of "Bob, a one-man band, based just down the road".

[Benny1973]

Have they actually withdrawn the previous offer (in writing)?. If the new offer is worse and they haven't withdrawn the previous offer, that is odd, as your parents could still accept the previous offer! .... (not that they "should" without the legal advice they are going to take, but "could").

 

It is against site rules to recommend a firm, so that won't happen publicly. Someone might say "I found firm X really helpful" privately in PM, but then you have no way of knowing how reliable the info is (unlike public advice, which gets reviewed by anyone who wants to!).

 

Birmingham has masses of solicitors. They key will be if your parents want a "big name" firm, one that isn't necessarily massively well known, but has a good reputation, or the convenience of "Bob, a one-man band, based just down the road".

 

The original offer was

 

"without prejudice Save as to Costs

 

Dear Sir & Madam

 

We refer to your recent communications with our Client’s agent.

 

We understand that you have indicated that you wish to resolve the Claim. For the reasons set out in our earlier correspondence, both we and our client are confident that our client will be successful in its claim in the above matter. Nonetheless, our client is mindful of the obligations on parties, under the Civil Procedure Rules, to try to resolve their disputes and of the potential benefits to the parties, in terms of costs and interest, of making a settlement offer. Our client is, therefore, prepared to make the settlement offer set out below.

 

TERMS OF OUR CLIENT'S Full and final SETTLEMENT OFFER

 

Our client hereby offers the following terms of settlement:

 

· This offer is made in full and final settlement of the whole of our client's claim referred to in the particulars of claim dated 7th June 2016, including any actual or proposed counterclaim.

· You to pay our Client’s costs of this matter, on the standard basis, to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

· 14 days after you accept this settlement offer in writing, you will:-

1. Pay to our Client the sum of £1,239.12 via electronic transfer into our Client account quoting reference 45/C using the account details set out in the attached methods of payment form.

2. Provide a written admission pursuant to section 168 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 as to your breach of paragraphs 6 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease.

 

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ACCEPT THIS SETTLEMENT OFFER

 

If you do not accept this settlement offer, we reserve the right to bring the contents of this letter to the attention of the court on the issue of costs. If you fail to do better than this settlement offer at trial, we intend to seek an order requiring you to pay our Client’s costs on the standard basis until 21 days after the date of this Offer and thereafter on the indemnity basis, together with interest on those costs until payment.

 

We await hearing from you."

 

This was emailed and never withdrawn in writing. It has no expiry date on it so i presume its still valid

 

The new offer made by the barrister before they went into see the judge was basically a rehash of the above but with costs now at 5k instead of just over 1k. Very tempting !

 

Thanks again for all the advice you have given

[steampowered]

Thanks for letting us know and sorry to hear it doesn't look like the other side are willing to back down. It would be well worth getting a bit of legal advice from a solicitor who acts in leasehold disputes at this stage.

[Benny1973]

Thanks for letting us know and sorry to hear it doesn't look like the other side are willing to back down. It would be well worth getting a bit of legal advice from a solicitor who acts in leasehold disputes at this stage.

 

 

They may still back down. My parents didn't make them the offer. They will make the offer now i think because if my parents wait for their next offer it will be similarly bad i imagine. They are going to get some legal advice first anyway