my Leasehold/Freehold property and its issues.

[BazzaS]

An appeal to the Court of Appeal?

Not for a faint-hearted litigant in person.

 

You wouldn’t want to make a procedural error and get hammered with the other side’s costs……(or lose on a procedural point). If you are up against a large company, they’ll likely have (costly!) legal representation for something going to the Court of Appeal.

 

Whilst CAG might help you with some of the “basic lifting” so you don’t have to get “lawyers to “ (charge you to) “do the donkey work”, are you SURE you don’t want professional legal assistance for the Court of Appeal?

Edited December 28, 2022 by BazzaS

[HP Mum]

Thanks BazzaS

Everything I have done for the last few years and am doing now is beyond my comfort zone.  But I haven't yet let that make me give up or stop!

 

I don't want to appeal the outcome of what the high court judge said (which was to my advantage) - just the costs.   

The claimant lost their claim yet the judge still awarded costs against me.  I want to appeal that. Or - if appeal isn't allowed - to ask for costs payable at end (costs in cause).

 

The otherside, yes, are very well funded.

I do get fee waivers (for forms).

 

Yes the otherside has said they will contest if I appeal.

It's a silly situation.  They and the judge know I can't pay the costs awarded against me now.  The judge's ruling created a situation whereby I should be able to pay within say 6 months (the costs element is a tiny fraction of what I could end up with at the end of litigation).  But the claimant is so angry with that ruling that I am pretty sure they will try to enforce payment/ make me bankrupt to stop me continuing with the litigation. 

 

After the ruling I sent in a form almost immediately to the same court.  But I just got an email (3w later) saying I need to send the form to the court of appeal cos it was a high Court judge's decision.

I don't really understand that.   

Is there a Court of appeal in the same local (high) court - or only one in central London? 

 

Ive been reading cpr52.

I find it confusing though.

I'm unsure if I need to ask permission to appeal?

Or if I can just submit my appeal - on whatever is the correct form in the correct place....??

[honeybee13]

I know there are pro bono barristers, I don't know if there's time to get advice from there.

 

Looking online, the Appeal court seems to be in the Strand in London.

 

One question I have (with no legal knowledge) is that you're talking about a form N161 seems to be for the Family Court. Is that the right one for your case?

 

HB

[HP Mum]

I am going through the pro-bono process for barristers with Advocate.  They haven't yet hooked me up with one.  And I think they're off until next week.

 

The 161 form is for civil cases. (I don't think just family?).   I think it may be the right form ) not sure though) but I've used it in the wrong place and at the wrong time?

 

From what I'm reading online now - I think I have 21 days from the sealed order after the hearing to make my appeal.  Which means I need to do it by end this week...  Anyone know if this is correct? 

 

I can do that, as long as I know which forms to submit on.  

 

The court was up north.  But I can attend the appeal court in London this week if that's the only appeal court and  where docs need to be presented ??

 

Form 201 says 'in most cases the lower court or the appeal court must grant permission to appeal before the appeal court will hear a full appeal' 

 

The form has a heading - appeal/ hearing centres. 

It is confusing.   I'm not sure if this section applies to me making a 1st application for an appeal?   Or if it applies to the next steps to take if a judge refuses permission?

It says:  'where the high court is the appeal court the applicant's notice must be filed in the appeal centre on the circuit (northern circuit) in which the lower court is situated where the appeal may be managed and heard (it lists 4 cities: Manchester, Liverpool, Preston, Chester).  It lists a hearing only centre in Carlisle for these 4 cities.

 

My case is civil proceedings in the High Court.

I'm appealing a High Court judge ruling on costs only, not his ruling of the case.

 

Form 202 explains how to appeal.

 

I'm concerned that now I'm out of time?  It says 21 days from the date of the decision, not the sealed order.  

[honeybee13]

Can you link us to that please?

 

HB

[HP Mum]

How to appeal to the Court of Appeal (Form 202) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Routes of appeal (Form 201) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

[HP Mum]

Little update 

I amended my original appeal form - n161 - which was the correct form, to include a section asking for time extension.  And created a small bundle including my grounds for appeal and evidence, copied 3 times.

 

I then went to the RCJ, Appeal court in person with the copies.  Theres a fee office there.  It was empty so got seen immediately but normally one has to book an appointment.

 

I had applied online for a fee waiver. You get given a code to put on the form.  The fee office processed the waiver and produced a certificate.   Then gave an envelope so the 3 copies and certificate could be dropped in the entrance drop-box.

 

As a litigant in person the court provides a case manager.  I don't yet know what that really means, but I understand one can call and ask advice with the process.

 

It takes apx 2-3w for them to process and seal the paperwork.  Next step will be to serve that on the otherside within 1w. 

 

I'm not sure what else I need to do or send the otherside. 

 

Guess this is now when it starts to get scary.

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened, please let us know what's happened since 2019.

 

HB

[HP Mum]

Thanks for re-opening thread.

 

To re-cap: back in spring 2019 a friend broker took a look at my loan papers and advised me that the broker who had organised a loan for me had not acted correctly.  Until this happened I had no idea that there could be anything wrong.  He advised me to write and ask the broker firm specific questions.  I did.  They replied and admitted they had not done x, y and z.   They wrote a lengthy explanation as to the steps they had taken - but the fact remained that they had still breached FCA regs.

 

The friend broker suggested making a claim for full restitution - to ask for them to put me back into the position I would have been if I hadn't taken the loan they mis-sold.   (I had asked for a btl loan which absolutely should have been viable as I had a tenant in situ at the time).  

 

In 2019 I kind of assessed that to ask for full restitution I needed to be able to quantify a loss??  And in 2019 I was trying to rectify my loss.   I put everything on hold.    But - I am still trying to quantify my loss 4 years later.   

 

Put simply I have had a huge battle with the lender - still unresolved - which has made me think I could not issue any kind of claim against the broker. But just this week my friend broker asked me how I got on with my claim against the broker firm.

 

The question I need to ask before I even consider making a claim now is:

does the clock start ticking from the day I found out they had breached FCA regs OR from the date they organised the loan?

[dx100uk]

if you've only just discovered it you'll be ok.

 

i will guess your friend is suggesting an irresponsible lending claim?

 

 

[HP Mum]

Friend broker brought it to my attention 4y ago.  Within 6 years of stat lim.

 

To copy what I wrote 4y ago:

"They did no fact find;

have no Suitability letter;

they did not fill out an income and affordability form,

they filled in the application form on behalf of the borrower

just emailed the signature page for borrower to sign

- so borrower had no sight of what the application form contained;

the broker did the same for the Terms

- just sent the signature page for borrower to sign. 

The broker did all this on an "Advised" basis.

 

If this constitutes irresponsible lending - then yes.

(I need to dig out all papers from 4y ago and refresh my mind.)

 

[BazzaS]

Wow. For YEARS you've been posting about the financial hardship you have been facing.

Now you are posting that you've known (for 4 years, at least), that you have a significant claim against a broker / their firm, and that you've "sat on it' for 4 years ...........

CAG can help you, but you actually have to help yourself, with CAG's assistance.

Why the 4 year delay?

The delay may give the brokerage the impression that you aren't serious about following this issue up, especially if you SAR'd them (and complained) in 2019, if you didn't follow it up then.

In 2019, you said your complaint had been acknowledged. You haven't said what the outcome of that complaint was. Was compensation offered, and did you accept it?

In 2019, you said your complaint had been acknowledged. You haven't said what the outcome of that complaint was, did you get a response that you then didn't object to or respond to / or receive a final response?

Was compensation offered, and did you accept it?

(The answers to these will affect if you can now go to the Ombudsman without the firm's permission /

if you still have a potential claim if you accepted compensation and didn't dispute it at the time).

[HP Mum]

Yep Bazza - 4 years.

 

Yes they did respond within a suitable period.  They gave some reasons as to why they didn't feel I had a claim against them. But I did and I do.

 

There are reasons why I pressed pause.

 

The property (long lease) was repossessed. Within 2 months my broker friend advised that the broker firm appeared to have breached FCA regs and I should write to them to check for sure.  Which I did.  And they admitted their mistakes.   At this point I could have taken the issue further.   However, I was advised to wait until the property had been sold so I could quantify my loss to the broker firm.

 

The mortgagee-in-possession obviously had a duty to sell as quick as possible. But they didn't and still haven't 4y later.  Hence how I still can't quantify my loss.

 

it's been one huge legal wrangle for all this time. Which goes some way to explain all my various threads!

 

It's actually been incredibly hard to keep focused, calm and clear-headed on the best courses of action - because there have been so so many twists and turns.

The lender has acted appallingly.  They still are.

 

They had opportunities to sell or accept payment in f&f for my debt within weeks of repo.  They stretched out their attempts for 1y.  In that year they tried to bribe an interested party to stop bidding.  They also tried to serve notice for the freehold but failed in law.  Their lawyers advised them - and any potential buyer - that freeholders consent would be required for any alterations.  In a bizarre act of arrogance the lender decided to not sell the property and instead send in a contractor to sledgehammer it into an empty shell.  This of course was in breach of the lease and probs fiduciary duty to sell.  They spent 1y renovating the property.  The freeholders complained and served notices, resulting in a forfeiture claim against the leaseholder - which was/is still me - but obviously I didn't do the the works, so the freeholder legal arguments have been against the lender.  (This has now been settled and some £s paid to the freeholders)

 

The lender has continued to add interest to my loan - and the costs of works too.  This is no small sum after 4y.

 

The property was in good condition and didn't need works.   Legal disclosure shows their contractor advised he could make it look fab for £30k.   Instead they allege they spent 400k on full works.  Yet at the same time the invoices they disclosed show they spent close to £1m!  They added sound surround, cctv, AC, fancy 12k chandeliers, tv's, furniture, etc etc.  Turns out that the lender chief exec refurbished to his own spec!.  I'm still not sure what his game is but I've seen he made a low offer to buy the property through an associated Ltd Co. (Yes I have all the emails)

 

Within the first year they tried to make me Bankrupt. They claimed they couldn't sell the property due to restrictive clauses in the lease - whilst they were simultaneously breaching the lease.  I appointed a lawyer (paid for by a friend) and avoided B. They had failed to serve me properly and importantly they had breached Insolvency Act as they failed to disclose the £ sum they were demanding was secured against the property.

 

They then tried to pursue me via the original possession claim for a fixed sum.  This is where legally things got/ get more complicated.

My lawyer got this adjourned.  But he never read any of the papers.  Not once in 1y.  If he had done so, he would have seen a crucial issue that, on point of law, he should have been able to stop the claim (and do a deal).  Yes - I do now have a potential negligence claim looming against my (now ex) lawyer!

This claim has not been discontinued/ stopped - it's just sitting inactive.

 

Meanwhile, with that claim adjourned, the lender then served a new claim in a different location court (for the same issues). This time they added in all the costs of works, 4y of interest and all their legal costs and those incurred in fighting the freeholders too.  They had more than doubled my loan..

  

I got some pro-bono help - who pointed out my ex lawyer's negligence. I successfully argued in court the point of law my ex lawyer had missed in the other claim. The Judge agreed and wiped out many years of interest.  And excluded the costs of works and all legals - apart from costs of that hearing (which I'm currently appealing in the court of appeal).

 

I have a counterclaim against the lender for all sorts of reasons to try reduce/ wipe out their charges - including unlawful assignment.  This claim is on-going but has been adjourned for several months.  The lender is arguing they should be allowed to add costs of works and legals to my loan (debt).

 

After 4y the lender has finally put the property back on the market.  But at an inflated sale price. Its a difficult market so I'm not sure why?  There's a strong chance it still won't have sold within 6-12 months. (They can still only sell the lease).

 

My loss is still not quantified - but I am now thinking that maybe this doesn't matter?  That maybe I should go back to the broker firm with my complaints - and ask for full restitution and return of the property?

Yes I've delayed 4y but the above is why….

 

I haven't wanted to divulge any of the above because it's been so complicated, over-whelming and exhausting.  I may have appeared to be hiding behind smoke and mirrors for years - but it is such a particularly distinctive case that I felt I should be discreet.  But this last w/e I looked at it with fresh eyes.  And realised I wouldn't be in all this mess if the broker had acted properly.  Hence, why I'm now elaborating and asking if I should re-open my claim.   

The sums though are huge - way above the ombudsman limit.

 

 

[HP Mum]

Any thoughts?

[HP Mum]

I have a query about an incorrect LBA, Deed of Assignment and registered charge on property.

I just discovered the errors.

 

Had 2 loans by 2 different lenders - A & B - secured against 1 property.   

Both lenders under same 'parent' institution.

 

Repayment due date missed. 

Lenders emailed had to repay that day or loans would be in default.

 

The next day a lawyer (with PoA) sent out 2x LBA.

So just 1 day after default they'd started the legal process.

 

3 working days after date of LBA their lawyer issued a deed of assignment - assigning A's loan to B.  

 

Simultaneously they applied to Land Registry to transfer A's charged loan to B - using AP1 and TR4 forms.

They were consolidating the 2 loans to make it easier for them to make one claim on the property.

 

The thing is that their (PoA) lawyer made mistakes:

- One of the LBA was incorrect (wrong assignor/ wrong £s)

- The deed of assignment stated the wrong £ value. 

It stated the £ value of loan B (instead of the £ value of loan A) was being assigned from A to B.

- The AP1 and TR4 forms filed and registered at LR repeated the same wrong £ value.

The consequences of their lawyers mistakes meant the consolidated £ total of A and B loan was registered wrong. 

Their lawyer had assigned and registered a much lower £ sum.   

Clearly the mistakes are in my favour.

 

No lawyer has ever vocalized these mistakes.  And 5y, almost 6y, have passed with the wrong amount on the deed and registered at LR.

 

Just as starter questions:

1. Could the assignment be invalid due to the mistakes? 
2. Could their lawyer apply retrospectively to LR to amend the value of the registered charge?
3. Or must the incorrect deed and LR docs have to remain incorrect - as they are all signed legal docs? 
4. At 6y would any errors be statute barred from their lawyer amending?

 

I'm just trying to assess if other legal action their lawyer took against me can be considered invalid due to these errors...

 

[dx100uk]

 a rather overtly complicated way to explain things...

a more simpler way is the original creditor sold both loans on to the same debt buyer and now their name has been legally changed on your deeds and the land registry site as they should be.

nothing murky there at all. 

a secured loan cannot become statute barred.

dx

 

[HP Mum]

It's not about the name.  

They assigned a loan at the wrong price

[dx100uk]

sold the loan. the oc has now wiped their hands of them.

i seriously doubt a typo if there is one and its not more misunderstanding about what has actually gone on, will make any difference to the outcome when it comes to the home sale, unless its a jointly owned property.

would be nice if you got out of the habit of never actually telling us dca names and oc names, cause im damn sure in your 100's of threads here, there more background to be merged into this thread...........

dx

 

[HP Mum]

Lender A that assigned their loan to lender B have the same parent company.  They didn't 'wipe their hands - it just became easier for them to make a legal claim if the 2 loans were one.

 

My question is not so much about 'typo" - the lawyer wrote a lower £ figure on the deed of assignment. And the lower figure was then recorded on the Land Reg legal docs.   Which meant the registered charge is a lower figure.  So my question is - if that figure is registered as the charge can they retrospectively change the deed and the LR docs? 

 

The reason I ask - is because maybe they sold the loan/debt at a lower price, as lenders sometimes do.

 

(It is the same lender I have had on-going issues with for years.  I dm-ed you who it was a long time ago. I just didn't want to disclose on a public forum)

[dx100uk]

13 threads now merged on the same issue .

i notice now that you have asked the same question numerous times over the years and always got the same answer........

time to stop playing secret squirrel eh?

not sure what anyone that now reads this thread of 373 posts over 15 pages is going to think...

[HP Mum]

Dx

-I am not sure what you are trying to say and achieve with your comments? 

you have historically been quite helpful and I have been appreciative. 

But right now you seem to have got out the wrong side of bed and seem to be quite spiteful with your comments?

The whole point about separating issues is precisely because I have had to deal with issues separately. Otherwise they overwhelm me. 

The people I am dealing with are just beyond awful awful people. 

Does it matter if I don't name them? 

I have been fighting them - with whatever they throw at me - for years - mostly alone. 

Although along the way,  I've discovered that some professionals, supposed to help, were self-serving so I end up also having to figure out if I can challenge what they did or didn't do.

All you have done this morning is make me cry and unbelievably upset. 

 Just stop. 

 People don't come on this forum to be attacked and criticised for trying to fight legal issues. 

 Innocuous comments can push people over the edge.

 

[dx100uk]

what im trying to point out, is exactly the same as you are,

you've been fighting these people for years and years now, on these two loans,

one's a Buy To Let Loan ,

the other is a Bridging Loan?

, both have now been sold to the same 'debt buyer' or is it resold again from one debt buyer to another, pass the parcel....

 

dx

 

 

[HP Mum]

(* posts 1-21 above of dx's amalgamation of threads are irrelevant)

 

I had a BTL originally. 

I had always rented the whole property whenever I could (school hols) and otherwise had lodgers and resided in it with kids. 

I needed to re-finance to cover cost of a lease extension (adding 90y to a short lease). 

I had a tenant in-situ when the broker was appointed

- the rent was very high and would have covered annual BTL mortgage costs within 3 months. 

The broker should have been able to get a BTL. 

 Instead he got me a bridge loan - separated into 2 loans with 2 lenders under 1 parent institution.   

I should never have been put on a bridge

- the sales market had already proved challenging whereas the rental market had always been successful.

* I found out 2.5y later (mid 19) that the broker had breached FCA regs

- did not follow correct protocol/ did no fact-find etc. 

I sent them a SAR immediately, they admitted their errors/ breaches. 

I did not follow up then because I could not quantify my loss.

I assumed the property would sell within months and then I could re-write to the broker or to the FCA/ FOS and quantify my loss and get compensation. 

Fact is 4y have passed and the property still has not sold.

I'm now re-assessing if I can resurrect my complaints but actually go for full restitution? 

As in, get the property back and get a BTL loan now?

Re the bridge loans:

after 1y with the bridges the property still hadn't sold. 

The lenders had refused to let me rent it out so I wasn't able to even service the loans.

Over that year the agents had only one offer but at a price which didn't cover the then inflated loans. 

Separately I found a private lender which would have enabled me to rent the property out (as I'd originally wanted). 

I offered the same value as the purchase price offer to the bridges lenders. 

The future rental income would have covered any shortfall. 

The bridges lender refused to accept my offer. 

They were convinced the property was worth more.

They stated they would just let my loans increase

- so they got more interest

- and then would be able to sell at the price they thought it should achieve. 

(They later discovered they couldn't sell it either).

 

End 17 (almost 6y ago) the bridges lenders (PoA) lawyer sent 2x LBA

- one of which attributed the wrong value to one loan. 

He followed that up with a deed of assignment

- also quoting the wrong value. 

He then also filled out 2 legal forms, both of which quoted the wrong value. 

This wrong value then got registered at Land Reg*.

For example (not using real £s):

one lender loan was 250k,

other lender loan was 150k

- total 400k   

The PoA lawyer registered 150k to the lender loan for 150k

- total 300k now registered as one charge against the property. 

Not 400k.

* I only just this week discovered the wrong £s were stated in the deed and registered at LR.   

I am now asking advice on if lender can retrospectively change the deed and what was registered at LR?

Obviously the registered sum equals the lender's charge on the property. 

As it stands the charge was registered at a lower value

- which meant/ means my loan/debt was lower.   

This would have impacted/ does impact my legal arguments...

In 2018 I had offered some £s to the lender. 

That formed part of a consent order. 

My question about does the value of the registered charge equal the value of my loan/debt impacts this co.  I am questioning now the validity of the co if the charge/ debt values were wrong? 

This is important now because a judge ruled in end 22 that this co had brought an end to the t&cs of the original loan(s) - and he capped my debt to the level it was in the 2018 co.

The last 4y have been ultra complicated with all sorts of legal angles attempted by the lender, me and the freeholders. 

The property was repossessed start 19. 

The (now just one) lender spent 1y marketing.   

The lender tried to compulsory acquire the freehold but the property does not qualify - it can only ever be a lease.   

They then asked the freeholders to give the freehold to them for free.

They never offered a decent price for the freehold. 

They failed to maintain the property, squatters got in, it became dilapidated.

the freeholders issued a schedule of dilapidations. 

The whole situation becomes complicated because I am a trustee for the freeholders (the freehold is held in a trust) and i have a fiduciary duty to protect the freehold interests separate from my own interests (in the lease).  This has meant I have been juggling legal issues on both sides - which has been exhausting.

2019-20 one buyer had constantly offered to buy it. The lender eventually agreed to sell but then reneged/failed to complete on the transaction. 

Later legal disclosure (probably sent to me by mistake) shows the chief exec of the lender wanted/wants the property for himself.

Meanwhile behind the scenes in 20 the lender was trying to make me bankrupt. 

Eventually I got a lawyer to get their B petition thrown out, end 20/start 21. 

Their SD was invalid (not served correctly)

- thankfully their attempts to get a back-door B via wrong addresses had back-fired. 

Their petition made no mention of the loan being secured against a property - so the petition was deemed in breach of the Insolvency Act.   

The lender's lawyer had argued the leasehold property could not be sold because the covenants of the lease were onerous, the lease was short (though it was >100y) and no buyer could make any alterations. 

However, simultaneously to the lawyer's statement, the lender sent a team of builders in to sledgehammer the property.  Seriously mad.  And totally in breach of the lease and thus preventing anyone being able to buy the property.   

The freeholders had to serve notice for breach of covenants/ forfeiture of lease. 

However, the lender continued to do major works (took >1y).  They spent like £1m (+ legal costs) which they have tried to add to my loan/ debt.  They finished, spent 2 months trying to sell at an inflated price but still no-one wanted to buy just the lease (+ not whilst legal action threatened forfeiture).  They removed it from the sales market for another year.  Throughout they continue to add interest to my loan - even whilst deliberately preventing a sale.

The lender knows they/a buyer can't have the freehold unless they pay a decent sum for it.  Perversely if they'd offered a decent sum 4y ago the property could have been sold.  Instead they've wasted so much money.  Bizarrely the lender now wants to extend the lease.  Even though every single potential buyer has said they will only buy the property with the freehold.  The freeholders don't, in principle, have any issue with selling an extension.  But -  the costs of any extension would again be added to my loan/debt... which after >4y is a further ridiculous waste of (my) money on a >100y lease...

The lawyer appointed and paid for by a friend should have been able to negotiate a settlement 2y ago - simultaneous to the B petition being struck out start 21.  He was negligent. He totally missed points of law because he failed to read and act upon legal papers sent to him.  (he admitted he hadn't read them).  But this only came to light end 22, via a legal clinic's intervention.  He took (friend's) money (and whatever I had left) and yet totally ruined the negotiations. 

* I have made a formal complaint, had some £s returned, and the firm is aware I am bringing a negligence claim against them a) for return of all fees paid in last 2y, b) for compensation, c) for loss.

As a separate issue I discovered the lawyer is very good friends with someone the lender appointed to manage the property.  His negligence could have been on purpose/ due to this conflict of interest?

This has dragged on for >4y.  I can't work because it's a full-time job (+ I'd lose pro-bono help and fee waivers).  I am fighting the injustice of it all.   

I'm trying to either get some equity out of the property or full restitution and the property returned (with a BTL loan going forward). 

I am looking at every possible way to achieve some kind of positive result.   

The above is just the bare bones of what I've gone through.

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened.

HB

[HP Mum]

Thank you

I know forum members have raised their eyebrows over the years at the multitude of issues I have had with one 'problem' lender - but that is just the way the situation has rolled.

I have tried to separate each issue in different - threads to help me stay focused on each issue independently (and stop me get overwhelmed). This did seem to confuse forum helpers though. So now Im just going to throw it all together in the next posts. As I need some further advice on a new twist

Background - Property repossessed almost 5y ago/ shockingly remains unsold now due to steps the m-in-p/receiver taken. Hence all my legal issues/ questions/ claims etc

For transparency - I'm effectively on both sides of claims.

On one hand receivers are using me as the registered leaseholder to make claims against the freeholders. 

Yet on the other hand I have fiduciary duties as a trustee for the freeholders and have been forced to make claims against the receivers (me personally).  (It's all a bit Bleak House). 

Today I have questions standing in my fiduciary shoes as trustee

I am handling all legal issues w/o lawyers.

3y ago the receiver used me to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension. There were issues with the service and the freeholders disputed its validity. 

A separate independent freeholder was also served - as they hold a small reversion interest in an underlying property and provide the leaseholder with a right to use the roof.

There is also another separate independent freeholder with another small underlying property equally offering leaseholder rights to use the roof.  This freeholder was never served a notice. So 3 freeholders in total

The crucial point is that these underlying properties and freeholders protect the trust's freehold from acquisition under 67 act - it is deemed to be a flat under 93 act. This has frustrated the receiver.  They tried and failed under the 67 act.

2y ago the 2nd freeholder agreed to grant extension of the rights to use the roof in a consent order. Without any discussion with the freeholders (or their lawyers at that time) with regards to % they'd want out of the eventual premium if one was agreed.

Fast forward to this summer and the freeholders privately agreed to grant an extension of the lease for an agreed premium. Because of all the various twists and turns whereby the receiver had tried to grab the freehold or force unwanted changes to the lease the freeholders ensured the order stipulated that "the new lease shall be same as existing lease".

It also stipulated a new lease be drafted as soon as possible. That the receiver would not fetter the sale of the freehold. And each side could apply to the court to enforce the terms without bringing a new claim. The freeholders appointed a lawyer to draft new lease. 

At which point it was pointed out that the 3rd freeholder (who'd never been served a notice) needed to be included for the new lease to be same as existing. This was a challenge as their registered title showed an overseas PO Box.  After a couple months they were eventually located and their lawyer joined in discussions. The receiver lawyer was advised within 2 months of date of the agreed consent order that this freeholder needed to be located and included in the new lease.

At this point the freeholders realized the receiver had never had any intention of serving or locating the 3rd freeholder.  They wanted to exclude them, reduce the number of underlying properties and freeholders, and shrink the new lease title to enable them to make the property qualify under the 67 act. 

The 3rd freeholder had separately and additionally granted the trust a long lease for their roof many years ago.  The leaseholder existing lease had become a sub-lease, with all the rights to use the roof. The receiver alleged the trust had thus become the competent landlords and the 3rd freeholder does not need to be included in the new lease. Which is correct - to a point.

However the terms of the lease between the 3rd freeholder and the trust stipulate the 3rd freeholder consent is needed on any transfer, underletting, assignment and that part of the existing lease (the roof) can never be separated from the total demise of the sub-lease.  Also, of course, the consent order states the new shall be the same as existing. 

Of course, as soon as the receiver had realized the 3rd freeholder had been found, they threatened to start new proceedings seeking the court to execute their lease alleging the freeholders had taken too long - even though the order simply said 'as soon as possible. And any delay had been due to the receiver failure to include the 3rd freeholder.  Of course they are just trying to steal the freehold.  Meanwhile to rub salt into wounds the 2nd freeholder signed their part of the receivers lease, without any communication with the trust freeholders.

As trustee I quickly made an application to the court to enforce the terms of the consent order - asking for an extra order that the freeholders lawyers execute their new lease including the 3rd freeholder and more time is given to include them. Pointed out receiver in breach - their version isn't the same.  And also asking court to force receiver to remove a pending application at Land Reg.  This application is currently waiting directions from a judge.

I discovered in August that 1y ago the receiver had tried to lodge a unilateral notice on the freehold.  They alleged it was to protect their extension notice.  But they'd only applied on the freehold title - not the other 2 freeholders titles.  Which shows they'd planned for 1y to try shrink the title.  Immediately made a formal objection to LR - which was accepted.  The receiver has until end next week to withdraw their application.

Meanwhile the freeholders lawyer drafted a lease including all 3 freeholders.  The 3rd freeholder has agreed in writing to be a party to the new lease.  The receiver refuses to accept this lease.  The receiver has drafted their own lease with only 2 of the parties in the existing lease. 

Within days of knowing the 3rd freeholder had been located - the receiver did issue new proceedings against the freeholders, a part 8 claim.  They are desperate to grab the freehold.  I've had to respond with AoS and statement. 

The problem the freeholders have -  is that the 2nd freeholder was included in this new claim. Im not sure what is going on behind-the-scenes - but they have replied to the court they accept the receiver's lease. 

So now there's 2 versions of a new lease.  The trust freeholders lease - which they state is compliant with the consent order as it's same as existing - and the 3rd freeholder has agreed to join in it.  And the receivers new lease - which is not the same as existing - but the 2nd freeholder has agreed to join it - within the new part 8 claim.

This 2nd freeholder is party to the existing lease because of a reversion interest which equals less than 5% of the overall demise.  They are fully aware that by agreeing to the receiver lease they are complicit in the trust losing its freehold. 

I hope a judge sanctions an order as per the application made.   A question I have now is - could I make a further application under the original extension claim asking the court for an order that this 2nd freeholder signs the freeholders lease?  The consent order allowed for both sides to apply to the court to enforce its terms.

I'm just wondering if the original claim takes precedence over this new part 8 claim? Makes it extraneous and without merit if a judge agrees with the freeholders.

The receivers new claim is full if incorrect statements.  Which were pointed out in the reply.

I'm not a lawyer. I just read and try best to understand.

Turns out the 2nd freeholder agreed their consent order 2y ago under a section 49(1) of 93 act.  This relates to not responding with a counter-notice.  This is bizarre because they did serve a counter-notice. Although I know the receiver took issue with it.   The freeholders did not respond with a counter-notice; just a letter which outlined all the reasons why they did not consider the notice was valid.  This became part of the protracted legal dispute - til this summer.  Irrespective when the freeholders did agree a consent order it was not made under s49(1).

I have read this 49 section.  It seems that it allows in (4) for tenants to apply to court if a new lease isn't executed within 2 months to enforce a new lease (in this case the receivers lease).  This is what the receiver has done.  They allege they have an order under s49(1) which allows them to use the (4) clause.  But the freeholders consent order does not state is was made under s49 (1).  The 2nd freeholders consent order does.  The freeholders consent order says "as soon as possible".   I have argued this point in the reply. 

I spoke to the 2nd freeholder when I saw they were aligning with the receiver.  Asked why.  They said they were constrained by the 93 act and the way the order was written.  I am guessing they mean the order they agreed under (1) which the receiver is now using to try enforce under (4)??  Can the receiver use the 2nd freeholder consent order to execute their lease?  The 2nd freeholder has jeopardized a freehold that's been protected for almost a century and - if the trust don't win - caused huge loss to the beneficiaries.

The other issue is the £s out of the agreed premium to this 2nd freeholder.

The % was never agreed in their consent order 2y ago.  And the % or £ sum was never apportioned in the freeholders consent order this summer.

The receiver has used this issue against the trust freeholders. 

The receiver alleges we never discussed the split. And their new claim asks for the premium to be paid to the 2nd freeholder and - worse - suggests they get 50%. To be clear the 2nd freeholder is not granting a lease extension - just an extended right to use their roof, which is less than 5% of the total sqf of the existing lease demise.

I did call and email the 2nd freeholder and the receiver several times in May to try understand what £s and % split had been agreed between them.  The 2nd freeholder didn't respond in writing. The receiver simply said no payment had been agreed or made.  I took that to mean they had agreed £0.

I now realize the receiver didn't want the premium split sorted.

In order to calculate the premium due to the 2nd freeholder, they need to calculate the total square foot of the existing lease demise - which will obviously include the excluded 3rd freeholders property.  It seems to me that this calculation of their % of the premium for the new lease acknowledges the existence of the 3rd freeholder. 

They can't then exclude them from the new lease.  Does that rationale make sense?  It's like they'd calculate a sum based on his inclusion - correctly - but simultaneously say "oh but he doesn't have to be part of the new demise for which we've just agreed to accept £s.  Surely they can't have it both ways?  I'm not good at Maths but I think this rationale makes sense!

I've written to the 2nd freeholder asking for their calculation and proposed £ figure. Pointed out it must include the 3rd freeholder sqf.  I'm just wondering if I can make a new application to the court - re enforcing 2nd freeholder to sign freeholders lease - whether I can also add something about the premium % split ?

I won't even begin to start now on all the legal issues that pertain to me personally - because I have some breathing space on those issues. They are overwhelming. And sometimes the legal deadlines of a new twist are so pressing that I just have to push them to one side.  Which is why sometimes it takes months (or years) to go back to assess if I still have a case.  

Although I will just say now that yes, I am still looking at the following personal legal claims: 

a) against the original broker

b) against the lender/m-in-p for failing in their duty to sell the lease 5y ago and

c) negligence against lawyer (friend paid for) who missed vital evidence for 1y (which came out in court via some pro-bono help and the judge agreed) . The lender £ claim -v- me is ongoing and will head to trial next summer! 

There's all sorts of really bad evidence against them. Including emails which show the CEO wants the property for himself... I have tried to force them to sell the property.  But they refused. 

They eventually put it on the market but inflated the price so it wouldn't sell. I now know they wanted to drag out the sale process in the hope the lease extension claim gets them the freehold. That's 3y of extra interest on my account, and still being added...

I asked the court for an order for sale. But this has been pushed to being dealt with at trial.  Which is ridiculous.   I'm trying to figure a way round this

I know some people may wonder why I don't give up.  But from a trustee fiduciary perspective I cant.  And the lender/ receiver has behaved so so so badly I want to bring them to account. 

I don't want to mention them on here now. But they take £s from investors, lend to borrowers, and both make £s profits.  In my case they have wasted so much money. They will clearly hide that by 'creative accounting'.  

Theyve hounded elderly relatives. 

Theyve caused family mental health problems.

I've hidden for 5y because they make me fearful. 

They employed people to try locate me (which I understand) but it involved "heavies" turning up at friends properties and my car being tracked (removed by garage/ I stopped driving for a while).  I am actually downplaying things. 

Their behaviour has been and is appalling. 

Intimidation at its worst. 

Their dubious tactics are evident in the abovementioned lease extension issue. 

I need to win that or the beneficiaries will lose everything

By all accounts I'm exhausted. And currently extremely emotional at the thought they are using all their legal resources and unlimited money against me/ the trust.  

But I need to fight and make sure the court does not allow the receiver/ lender to grab the freehold

Apologies for the Saturday morning rant

Are there any property gurus on here? 

Experts on leasehold/ freehold issues? 

One particular issue I need to run by an expert

Any idea on where to find a 'cheap/ pro-bono' barrister who is an 'expert' on LH/FH and conveyancing