Winderbray/JCF PM/PCB Lawers Claimform - Service charge arrears - Refused Payment Plan - Now N244 for SJ+Strike Out.

[AndyOrch]

Topic moved to General Legal Issues forum.

Can you scan redact and upload a copy of your claim form please.

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

10 minutes ago, 1penny said:

Hello Andyorch

Many thanks for your prompt response.

I don't have access to a scanner at the moment, Can I type the particulars of claim excluding names and addresses ?

 

Thanks

 

Penny

Sure but if you could do as above that would be an advantage then we see the finer details issue date claimants contacts etc.

[AndyOrch]

8 minutes ago, 1penny said:

Ok so I show the claimant and lawyer details and address, but exclude our details from the particulars ?

Yes anything that identifies yourself,  also the claim number.

[AndyOrch]

Upload unavailable ?

[AndyOrch]

You have 19 days (Mon4th March 16.00pm) to Acknowledge Service from and including the issue date 15th Feb and which time you must decide if you want to defend the claim in full or make a partial admittance,

[AndyOrch]

You may find the following invaluable particularly the section on Pre Action Protocol given that they have now litigated.

https://www.lease-advice.org/article/seeking-information-on-service-charges-remedies-at-leaseholders-disposal/

 

[AndyOrch]

Not really applicable to your claim hence the reason I asked for a copy of the claim form just for the particulars.

[AndyOrch]

1 hour ago, 1penny said:

In terms of copies of docs that I request, should that be the statement of account and lease only or should I request anything else since the particulars of claim are vague ?

Documents referred to in statements of case etc.

31.14

(1) A party may inspect a document mentioned in –

(a) a statement of case;

(b) a witness statement;

 

Vague for the above reason.

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

CPR 31.14 is free

[AndyOrch]

They could but i have never seen it happen assuming they even respond. Same envelope.

 

.

[AndyOrch]

10 minutes ago, 1penny said:

should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim

You can remove the above as its not a requirement for MCOL claims but the rest applies

[AndyOrch]

Lease/contract one and the same ...post your final draft here before sending.

[AndyOrch]

[AndyOrch]

19 hours ago, 1penny said:

I have been reading some holding/no paperwork defences to assist with drafting our defence.

I think in this type of claim its going to require a little more than a simple holding defence type

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

I've added the particulars for easy reference which helps when drafting a response. You must either admit deny or question every paragraph in the claimants particulars. No response is taken as an admittance by the court.

 

[AndyOrch]

The only advantage of waiting is in hope that they may respond to the CPR 31.14...which I very much doubt therefore no real advantage but lets gets it tight first..plenty of time.

[AndyOrch]

I think your response to their paragraph 1 is a little sparse and allows the court to believe the claimants pleadings and that you are simply avoiding paying and by using the holding defence are simply complicating the claim.

Quote

Due to Covid (my partner lost his job) and the cost of living crisis we have been unable to pay in full. We were speaking to the managing agent and trying to pay as much as we could afford and explained our circumstances. I also lost a parent suddenly during covid and couldn't have a funeral. This is still hurting me now. The managing agent then appointed solicitors who again we tried to reach an affordable payment plan with but they refused. We still continued to make payments. We had almost reduced the arrears down to 50pct in the past year, which has been a struggle.

You could have included parts of the above to show the court that there is more to this claim than meets the eye. That the claimant has been unreasonable and by issuing the claims as a means to secure its investment /debt against the property mortgagee. 

I appreciate that you can expand on this if the claim proceeds but from the outset if your response had more detail/mitigation, it may discourage the claimant to review its position and possibly discontinue its claim.

Don't worry if you have already submitted the defence or do not have time to amend.

Lolerz ?

Andy

 

[AndyOrch]

On 03/03/2024 at 18:11, 1penny said:

1. The defendants owe the claimants the sum of £12,630 for arrears of service charge part of which has been outstanding and demanded since 1st April 2019 pursuant to a lease dated 4th September 1998.

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are extremely vague and generic in nature.

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.


1. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action protocol) and failed to serve a letter of claim pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It Is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

2.  Paragraph 1 is noted. The defendant is the leaseholder for *insert property address*

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The defendant/s are the leaseholders of xxxxxxxx. It denied that the alleged amount claimed is simply down to arrears and none payment. Having dealt with the Managing agents in trying to resolve this matter and arrange an affordable payment plan to which they refused. The managing agent then appointed solicitors who again we tried to reach an affordable payment plan with but they refused. Not withstanding the above and with no admittance of liability we still continued to make payments and almost reduced the arrears down to 50% in the past year.

[AndyOrch]

Thanks Lolerz

I am just concerned this claim will be Fast Track and the claimants will no doubt milk the costs. I see your points re the technical legislative points which can be expanded on further into the process

But from a judges perspective its a matter of getting his interest and not him simply viewing as a debtor or avoidance. 

[AndyOrch]

Yes but you should add a line re sec69 interest is incorrect and be denied.

[AndyOrch]

So to save us referring back this is what we have so far...

 

1. The defendants owe the claimants the sum of £12,630 for arrears of service charge part of which has been outstanding and demanded since 1st April 2019 pursuant to a lease dated 4th September 1998.

2.The claimants claim interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from 1st April 2019 to 14th February 2024 on the said sum the interest being £1,009

and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £2.77.

The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 01/04/2019 to 14/02/2024 on £13,632

and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £2.77

What is the total value of the claim? £14,414

Proposed Defence

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are extremely vague and generic and misleading in nature.

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action protocol) and failed to serve a letter of claim pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It Is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

2.Paragraph 1 is noted. The defendant/s are the leaseholders of xxxxxxxx. It denied that the alleged amount claimed is simply down to arrears and none payment. Having dealt with the Managing agents in trying to resolve this matter and arrange an affordable payment plan to which they refused. The managing agent appointed solicitors who again we tried to reach an affordable payment plan with but they refused. Not withstanding the above and with no admittance of liability we still continued to make payments and almost reduced the arrears down to 50% in the past year. 

3. The claimants claim for section 69 interest be denied as its incorrectly calculated and duplicated.

4. The Defendant upon receipt of the Claim Form sent the Claimants Solicitor a CPR 31:14 request on 28th February 2024. To date, the claimant has failed to fulfil this request.

5. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to :

(a) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and

(b) That the money for major works was legally demanded by way of Section 20 Notices as per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985; and

(c) that Service Charge demands were correctly issued according to the terms of the lease and Section 21(B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

7. The Claim is denied.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed.

 

 

.

[AndyOrch]

Feel free to tweak it further Lolerz but I think it now covers the main points and may give the claimant something to consider before continuing ?

Do they want a can of worms opening ?

[AndyOrch]

Precisely that was the point I wished to convey and get across. 

[AndyOrch]

[AndyOrch]

Yes take a read of the following