• Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


    The leaseholder has harassed us with slamming doors for two over 2 years (not good when you have a baby), she has made numerous trivia complaints to the police and HA about me. My complaints to my landlord about her behaviour where ignored so I wrote to the Police Chief Constable who assigned an officer to investigate.

    I recieved a visit from the Police yesterday whom inform me that after a lengthy and expensive investigation into what is a civil matter they where there to inform me that despite the volume of complaints logged with the Police by the leaseholder they had absolutely no problems with me and further the leaseholder has been advised to stop calling the Police on matters that are not their concern. Today the HA have followed suit by sending an email via their solicitors informing me that they will not be taking any action against me in connection with the leaseholders complaints and she has been informed.

    The leasholder has used to separate solicitors to threaten me with a damages action for harassment? However none replied to my reply.

    Having worked with children, young offenders and drug and alcohol addictions I'm enhanced CRB cleared I was offended by leaseholders false allegations and disturbing my family so I wrote to the GSCC about her behaviour (she is a family social worker). The GSCC replied that although my complaint was outside their regulatory remit they have attached my complaint to her file for any future consideration.

    Has the landlord failed to protect my statutory right of quiet enjoyment by allowing her to use their complaints procedure to harass. Every complaint produces a letter and a home visit, then nothing happens.

    If not, how do I stop this nutter using the HA's system to harass example, it is assumed on delvery of materials to next door the builders placed my traffic cone normally kept on the driveway in her garden, I ssume because it was in their way. The leaseholder makes a complaint to the police and HA that I have harassed her by placing my cone in her garden. Result of her actions ignored by the police, I get a letter and home visit from the HA.


      Appilcation to amend particulars of claim filed.

      Damages not sought are General, aggravated and consequential I've also asked for the following.
      Damages for unlawful eviction (s27 Housing act 1988)
      Damages for harassment under Protection from harassment act 1997
      Damages for trespass
      Damages for derogation from grant
      Damages for inducement by misrepresentation of tenancy
      Damages for a substantial breach of the landlords covenant to quiet enjoyment
      The claimants ask the court to order that the defendant return the cupboards to the claimants possession or pay damages for their loss.

      Hopefully I didn't miss anything?


        Well law cruncher and others here is the defence recieved today for a directions hearing on Thursday, Please can you tell if your previously mentioned case law stand up to this, Counsel has drafted their defence?

        "As a matter of law D could not in 2001 demise the cupboards to C when it had already let them in 1984 to the lessee of Flat 2 for 125 years. In ither words, it could not in law grant C an interest in land that had already been granted to another. This is a classic example of the maxim nemo dat quod non habet (no-one gives who possesses not)"

        Hope to hear from you guys


          Google tells me there are many exceptions to the nemo dat rule, possession and quassi contract being 2 of these. Am I correct?


            An extremely complex case, but a few thoughts emerge.

            1.Who is the freeholder of the property , the HA?

            2.Was your rent amended to reflect the additional use of a garden?. HA rents are based on a formula which reflect valuation and property size and average earnings index in the locality. I am sure that your rent would have increased because of the use of the garden, especially if you rent in London.

            3.You want to extend the property?;I doubt very much that you would be able to do so under a public sector tenancy.

            4.You are thinking of buying the flat in the future, Do you have the Right to Acquire?

            5.The HA’s are required to investigate and stop instances of harassment from either side. Although, one would expect the HA to consult o/s agencies eg: Police, Environmental Health etc. It would seem that the appropriate way forward for all concerned is the HA to pay for the use of a mediation service.

            6. Your claim for damages (in an attempt to cover all bases)seems excessive, can you get legal representation for the 15th?

            7. I would have thought that the Judge, may have to quantify the costs of damages and make a decison on the extent of potential awards. How much time has been allocated for the hearing?


              Thanks Chemistry for your considered reply.

              Law cruncher and others have brought this to a point beyond most of your questions with court in 2 days I think its safe to say we're past mediation It's been established that I need to challenege the landlords idea that my possession is unlawful and I must give way to the leaseholder.

              My case summary was filed today used case law of lord hastings v saddler and smirke v Lyndale developements to establish in law I have legal possession. Before anything else can be considered this point must be proven.

              They have today supplied me with a defence the sum total of is the "nome dat rule", I need to know if that rule over rides the case law filed. Personnaly I don't think it does because their are exception to the rule and I feel I am covered by at least 3, posession, quassi contract and voidable contract.

              As for your other Q's the landlord a HA had agreed to an extension whether I purchased or not. The police have advised the leaseholder to stop complaining. The landlord has shown a serious corporate harassment covering a 3 year period through emails, letters, home visits, unlawful eviction notice and allowing the leaseholder to harass because it suits their purpose, so I won't be looking for help there.


                My point is that I am afraid from the posts,it appears that you seem to be acting as the owner of the property rather than the tenant. It would seem to me that a Judge will ask a simple question? what does the Freeholder/HA say about the garden?. The HA will respond by stating that as far as they are concerened the Leaseholder owns the garden and has access. Who owns the freehold?


                  Furthermore, how much time has been allocated to the case?.This can serve as an indicator as to what matters will be addressed. Given your defence, I doubt that this matter will be concluded on the 15th.


                    [QUOTE=kburgoyne;331059]Thanks Chemistry for your considered reply.

                    My case summary was filed today used case law of lord hastings v saddler and smirke v Lyndale developements to establish in law I have legal possession. Before anything else can be considered this point must be proven.

                    They have today supplied me with a defence the sum total of is the "nome dat rule", I need to know if that rule over rides the case law filed.

                    Imust state that I would not attempt to advise on this aspect. I hope that you will be legally represented on this point. It seems to me that you are stating that the nome dat rule applies because the HA did not have the authority to sell the garden to your neighbour because they had granted you a tenancy with exclusive rights of the garden,am I correct?


                      CHEMISTRY PLEASE these points have been covered.

                      They are using nome dat rule not me, the landlord has leased the land twice he is now saying although he admits to doing this, his defence is in law one cannot lease the land it does not own. It has already been established here a landlord can rent the same land twice and it has already been established through case law that although the leaseholder is the legal owner my possession stops her from using the land until the end of my tenancy. It has also been established here that the leaseholders should seek compensation from the landlord for her lose.

                      I am hoping those that helped with the problem in the first place might have something to say about the most recent development of the landlord using the "Nome dat rule"


                        This must be costing you a fortune? Or am I paying through Legal Aid?
                        Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me


                          Hello, legal aid your having a laugh


                            Wow - it would have been cheaper to put a deposit on your own place!
                            Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me


                              The idea that the nemo dat rule applies to land is misconceived. It is a rule to protect the owner of personal property i.e. chattels. You do not therefore need to trouble yourself with researching the exceptions. Whilst it is true that in relation to land you cannot pass on a better title than you have and obviously cannot sell the same land twice, title to land operates differently.


                                Thank you Lawcruncher you make it worth coming here.

                                In relation to the title they say the lleaseholder is first in time because her lease dates back to 1984 whareas I moved here in 2001. However my dispute is with the 3rd leaseholder since being here, she purchased in 2005. Am I first in time over her because I've been here 4 years previous to her?

                                Thanks in advance.


                                Latest Activity


                                • Reply to Wanting a way Out. Need help!
                                  by JK0
                                  We have one or two inexperienced landlords here who are always wiping their tenants' bums.

                                  Find a self-reliant minority in your area (here it's Romanians) and try to get their friends to take your properties as they fall vacant. I rarely hear from my tenants.
                                  17-08-2022, 22:29 PM
                                • Wanting a way Out. Need help!
                                  by crutherford
                                  Well I know this is a UK forum, but it is a popular one. So I thought I'd see if there's any advice here for a small landlord.
                                  I'm in the U.S. I have worked all my life, saved my money, and spent the last 15 years of my working career 'contracting' or working temp jobs, which always ended up in...
                                  17-08-2022, 03:55 AM
                                • Reply to Order for possession Q
                                  by shoobydoo
                                  small question, but if the possession order says tenant must leave "before" 30/8, can OP not start arranging bailiffs on 30/8?...
                                  17-08-2022, 19:58 PM
                                • Order for possession Q
                                  by patrick27
                                  Hello everybody, I received a order for possession (accelerated procedure) it says my tenant should leave my property before 30/8. The tenant already had an opportunity to file a defence and request a hearing but didn’t.

                                  So my question is, am I plain sailing now? Or could they yet still...
                                  17-08-2022, 14:23 PM
                                • Reply to Wanting a way Out. Need help!
                                  by shoobydoo
                                  Oh dear, you do seem to be in a pickle.

                                  Firstly, are you being selective enough when choosing your tenants or just choosing anyone so as to avoid void periods? Bit concerning that all 5 families are high maintenance, and that tenants are regularly "bolting".

                                  17-08-2022, 19:44 PM
                                • Reply to £500,000 of taxes spent - another anti L/l move
                                  by gnvqsos

                                  I think you will discover that many benefit recipients are exceptional money managers-after all the blind ,disabled and retired are practised at the art and have years of experience. You seem well-acquainted with this socio-economic group-are you a social researcher or a mere saloon...
                                  17-08-2022, 18:29 PM
                                • £500,000 of taxes spent - another anti L/l move
                                  by steaming
                                  Social housing tenants will be able to get training and support to speak up and complain about issues with their landlord, the government has announced. 

                                  A £500,000 grant to provide training, boost confidence and offer toolkits for residents on a range of social housing issues has now...
                                  17-08-2022, 15:01 PM
                                • Reply to £500,000 of taxes spent - another anti L/l move
                                  by ash72
                                  Those T's who claim benefits, were empowered when UC came about, making them responsible for the money the government gave them to use how they wanted, some misused this as they weren't equipped on their responsibilities on paying LL's on time, etc, and spent the money on whatever they wanted to. They...
                                  17-08-2022, 17:50 PM
                                • Reply to Council tenants still not able to move out after two months is due
                                  by jpkeates
                                  Being practical, the chances of a letting agent serving a valid section 21 notice are quite slim.
                                  But, on 1st September you can, in theory, apply to a court for a possession order.
                                  If the section 21 notice is valid, there isn't any defence.

                                  You're right about the 42 days - but...
                                  17-08-2022, 17:43 PM
                                • Council tenants still not able to move out after two months is due
                                  by freezing_sy
                                  Basically council still have not found them the next house. I'm so desperate and need them go. What can I do please? They are foster family, apparently very volunerable as people may think. But they terribly damaged my house, they have also cancelled UC direct payment. I need them go......
                                  16-08-2022, 21:11 PM