Forfeiture & the LVT

[siva]

The protection of the LVT ( or other determination) is extended to those at risk from forfeiture proceedings as a necessary precursor to S146 proceedings as in the 96 Act and as amended and extended under CLRA. it would be pointless to seek determination and then start over with an LBA as the whole point is to resolve a problem by agreement determination or "nuclear force"- forfeiture.

I see there are now later posts. I will reply to this now and read the others later on.

Whether it is intimidation or not depends on whether the threat is lawful or not. I believe that if there is no breach then it is probably not intimidation if it is clearly stated that forfeiture proceedings are conditional on the breach first being established by LVT/Court. However I would say that where it is obvious that there is no breach then threat of forfeiture is always intimidation.

[Perplexed]

Yes it is 3 years as posted earlier but the £350 is still the SI regulation amount. £500 is the cap amount in CLRA 2002

Q1 but the arrears are still totalled as being short. The outcome depends on how the charges are reserved and how they were tendered, otherwise the FH can allocate as he sees fit. Keeping them in one account and combined billing is risky.

Q2 as said re entry is different from forfeiture. if the lease allows it the LL can reenter but is liable for a breach of quiet enjoyment harassment and a criminal act, while the lessee has the ability to seek relief.

What is meant by 'cap'? I thought there was just a minimum threashold.

Q1 Yes, the account has been in the red for about 3 years now.

Q2 OK, let's assume the FH re-enters. Who exactly is he harassing if it's an empty flat? Whose quiet enjoyment if there's nobody there?

Yes, the LH can seek relief, but if he doesn't within 6 months the lease can be wiped off the records, can it not?

If LH applies for relief within 6 months, he will still have to pay all the FH's costs, and suppose the flat is found in a bad state and repairs are carried out by the FH, shouldn't the LH also have to pay for those?

[siva]

The AST has its own rules, but the principle is sound, a breach of some sort will lead to consequences and under the CPR and new LVT rules the consequences will have to be spelt out in the LBA

I am now confused. Are you saying that there is CPR which dictate that unless you comply you are guilty of harassment/intimidation? Or are you referring just to the expected behaviour taken into account by the Courts when awarding costs?

[Perplexed]

I am now confused. Are you saying that there is CPR which dictate that unless you comply you are guilty of harassment/intimidation? Or are you referring just to the expected behaviour taken into account by the Courts when awarding costs?

I think LHA is referring to pre-action protocol. Before issuing proceedings you have to make it absolutely clear what the consequences can be. That is not harassment.

Of course, if there is no real breach and the FH is making it all up to intimidate the LH when he has no intention of issuing proceedings, then it's different. But before you ignore the LBA you have to be absolutely sure that that is the case, because if you are wrong you can find yourself in big trouble... although I assume a breach could, in most cases, be remedied before the FH is granted possession.

[siva]

I think LHA is referring to pre-action protocol. Before issuing proceedings you have to make it absolutely clear what the consequences can be. That is not harassment.

Yes, but I hardly think you can use this as an excuse to harass somebody with a bogus claim. When you are telling somebody they must take certain action or they may lose their home you need to be pretty damned sure that the thing you are threatening is lawful.

The book I referred to uses an example from the short term rental world. "A landlord who threatens to unlawfully evict a tenant for doing something they are allowed to do is intimidating the tenant". The criteria is that the threat is intended to get somebody to do something that causes them damage, is coercive coupled with a demand and is unlawful.

[leaseholdanswers]

Yes, but I hardly think you can use this as an excuse to harass somebody with a bogus claim. When you are telling somebody they must take certain action or they may lose their home you need to be pretty damned sure that the thing you are threatening is lawful.

In which case they can argue the point and ultimately take action and seek damages or a conviction, if they can prove it and have the funds to pursue it.. None of this is hardly "news"......

Freeholders have in the past done so in regards to GR - I recall several cases where it was small amounts as posted earlier and I can recall one where it was a few £oo and possession was granted. I am sure there are some landlords who do take an aggressive stance on breaches to run up fees and have I am sure targeted "underwater" homes to get a bargain or got money that could well have been challenged.

It ain't perfect and there is good and bad as there is all walks of life like the BTL flat owners who bought ran and hid
leaving residents owned Man Cos to run with shortfalls and huge expenses trying to find people hiding being valueless companies or in various parts of the world. In sympathy with one group I even paid for my own flights to serve papers on one owner of several units, boy was he surprised to see me appear down his track in Portugal.

[siva]

In which case they can argue the point and ultimately take action and seek damages or a conviction, if they can prove it and have the funds to pursue it.. None of this is hardly "news"......

This might not be news to some but from reading posts on here (and personal experience) I get the feeling that LL's and solicitors are forgetting to mention the rather important initial LVT/Court step when threatening forfeiture.

As far as I can see you have to prove 3 things i) that the threat is intended to get somebody to do something that causes them damage iii) it is coercive coupled with a demand and ii) it is unlawful.

When I look at those 3 things I wonder whether forfeiture should even be threatened until the LVT decision.

[leaseholdanswers]

This might not be news to some but from reading posts on here (and personal experience) I get the feeling that LL's and solicitors are forgetting to mention the rather important initial LVT/Court step when threatening forfeiture.

As far as I can see you have to prove 3 things i) that the threat is intended to get somebody to do something that causes them damage iii) it is coercive coupled with a demand and ii) it is unlawful.

When I look at those 3 things I wonder whether forfeiture should even be threatened until the LVT decision.

It is really pointless discussing this.

The examples here are usually where the LL MA Sols dont know what they are doing or are being b*st*rds ( & we often get a summary of info and not the whole story). They are the exception and imperfect as they are there are remedies to that.

You might wish it otherwise but it would be a rare confluence of circumstances where your line of thought might have merit.

[siva]

The examples here are usually where the LL MA Sols dont know what they are doing or are being b*st*rds

Or, as was the situation in my case, LL/MA who don't know what they are doing, Sols probably knowing what they are doing but would deny it later, and LL/MA being b*st*rds.

[leaseholdanswers]

Aah now so there is a point. Action by your landlord is in your view a breach of your quiet enjoyment and harassment.

Depending on the validity of the underlying claim, their failure to approach it with due regard to S146, S 81 -1996 act, CLRA and the CPR is the basis for arguing that their conduct was H and a breach of QE.

Pitch to a no fee no win type and see if there is some mileage. Often they work on the basis that if it takes £2/3K to just get advice, they will send a letter costing them a few £100 and take 40% of £2/3k as the LL will say "make it go away".

[siva]

Pitch to a no fee no win type and see if there is some mileage. Often they work on the basis that if it takes £2/3K to just get advice, they will send a letter costing them a few £100 and take 40% of £2/3k as the LL will say "make it go away".

Thanks, I'm not sure whether we have any 'no win, no fee' types around here who would be able to deal with my problem. They all seem to be ambulance chasers. I have an appointment in early April with a university law clinic though and will see what they think.

Also, the LL has no money and is a limited company. The owners would probably stump up about £1000 to keep the company afloat though but any award for damages higher than that would probably be unpaid. I've read that where damage claims include harassment or dishonesty the Courts tend to award actual proven damages and about £1000 in exemplary damages. The only actual damages are my time and as I'm semi retired it's difficult to put a price on that. So I don't think a solicitor would take up the matter unless I paid up front which is something that would put me off. I feel as though it's something I could take up myself and am investigating the general principles.

[leaseholdanswers]

An ambulance chaser type is liley what you need for a no win no fee case.

http://www.contactlaw.co.uk/what-is-...itigation.html
I suggest you put together a simple summary you are a leaseholder under a lease of X with a landlord Y and or agent who alleged that I was running an S & M service based on my GF likes to wear leather, rides horses and so has a whip, and I once stubbed my toe and screamed.

They alleged that this was contrary to clause z of my lease and rather than following this process did this which was H and a breach of my QE.

Can I sue 'em?

Do not, do not, wallow in your hard earned research,let that help the process where it can.

[siva]

Do not, do not, wallow in your hard earned research,let that help the process where it can.

There's no wallowing going on, just careful planning. There's a history of litigation between myself and the LL and I have won 80% of the cases, so you will see there's more to this than just this one matter.

I will speak to an ambulance chaser though. Once I've spoken to the people at the Uni. I suspect they wouldn't touch it though because of the complexity and the amount of work involved to get a full picture.

I think the Uni. Law Clinic can help because they use it as a way of giving students experience. Everything is overseen by the Law Department and outside lawyers also help. I'm hoping they become interested in the case and spend a bit of time and effort on it but if not I have some direct questions for them which will help me in regard to a few aspects of the case.

[leaseholdanswers]

There's no wallowing going on, just careful planning. There's a history of litigation between myself and the LL and I have won 80% of the cases, so you will see there's more to this than just this one matter.

I will speak to an ambulance chaser though. Once I've spoken to the people at the Uni. I suspect they wouldn't touch it though because of the complexity and the amount of work involved to get a full picture.

I think the Uni. Law Clinic can help because they use it as a way of giving students experience. Everything is overseen by the Law Department and outside lawyers also help. I'm hoping they become interested in the case and spend a bit of time and effort on it but if not I have some direct questions for them which will help me in regard to a few aspects of the case.

Bluntly you are going the wrong way about this. As the litigant the single big obstacle to an advisor is some one who wallows in their reading/research, trying to seduce the advisor with what they see as telling points, and complexity.

What is needed is perspective, structured around the above post, which gives the advisor a road map to look at the issues and what your expectation is. The detail and your understanding can be put to good use later on.

[siva]

Bluntly you are going the wrong way about this. As the litigant the single big obstacle to an advisor is some one who wallows in their reading/research, trying to seduce the advisor with what they see as telling points, and complexity.

I agree. I've seen it in other people and it is one of the biggest failings of the people I am dealing with. They go to a solicitor and show them a selection of correspondence which gives the wrong impression. By doing so they fail to show the weaknesses of their argument. Then they cherry pick from advice they are given to reinforce their beliefs.

Unfortunately I have no choice really, everything is interlinked. I can't just present an adviser with everything and let them make their own mind up because there is just too much that I would have to show them. It would take them a week to read everything. Because of this I have to manage the situation myself and bring in experts on certain parts of it. I am obviously at risk of falling into the trap that you point out but there's nothing I can do about it. I am having to rely on my own objectivity.