Reply to: Own a flat? Think again.

[SueEllen]

When Paddy does not like some UK court decision then one can safely back the other side

He interprets it as it is OK to ignore:
1. Letters from the other party who have a legal right to ask you for money
2. Letters from the courts

There as I interpret as you definitely don't ignore letters from the court as judges will treat you badly in subsequent hearings. He doesn't understand that this is why individuals who can pay up when they get a court summons.

[SueEllen]

I think it says something frightening about human nature that so many people are willing to try and justify it, or even just shrug it off. I think when people realise they are subject to some frightening consequence over which they have little control, they invent reasons why the victims deserve their fate, in order to make themselves feel safer.

So because she decided to ignore letters from the court she should keep her flat?

If she hadn't ignored the first lot of court letters then it's extremely likely we wouldn't be discussing this case now.

The issue would have been sorted out in the first hearing. Her solicitor would have advised her to pay the ground rent and service charges immediately so the freeholder's case could be dismissed. In fact she wouldn't have needed a solicitor as lots of organisations e.g. LEASE, CAB would have told her to pay up immediately to halt the proceedings.

In lots of court cases one side or the other tries to pretend they didn't receive correspondence. However most people are not stupid enough to pretend they didn't receive court letters.

Ignoring court letters means you think the law doesn't apply to you. Anything you do subsequently means you are on the back foot in the legal process.

So unless you have a good reason such as were hospitalised or out of the country, you have no excuse in not getting court letters and dealing with them as directed.

[IR35 Avoider]

If you get the backing of the majority of the leaseholders you could do what we did for my place in London and do a share of freehold. Essentially we setup a LTD. company that owns the freehold and then we issue a limited number of shares so that the leaseholders can become shareholders of that company. I've found it to work well but it depends on the strength of the board of directors but generally as they live in the building too they have a vested interested in keeping on top of things.

Not sure how that solves the problem. I own a share of the leasehold, it is worth about 1% of what I would lose if the lease were cancelled. (And in fact there are legal clauses that mean that the shares are compulsorily transferred with the lease. The freehold shares that should have been transferred to me from the previous owner when I bought were overlooked, and for about £200 in legal fees I had the shares compulsorily reassigned to me a year or two later. The former owner was uncontactable in any case, however there was no need to contact him to transfer the shares to me.)

[IR35 Avoider]

I was aware that it was possible for a lease to be cancelled if you breached the terms, say by not paying the management charge on your flat.

It's outrageous that the law does not require any profit after the debt and legal costs are paid to be returned to the former leaseholder.

I think it says something frightening about human nature that so many people are willing to try and justify it, or even just shrug it off. I think when people realise they are subject to some frightening consequence over which they have little control, they invent reasons why the victims deserve their fate, in order to make themselves feel safer.

[AtW]

When Paddy does not like some UK court decision then one can safely back the other side

[Paddy]

The Court of Appeal wasn't wrong.

The higher courts look at how the law is applied and interpreted very strictly.

There was nothing in the laws she was using to argue her case that actually backed her up.

She made it clear at least twice that correspondence for the flat should be sent to the flat with written evidence to back this up.

While it was proven in earlier proceedings the Service Charges were serviced incorrectly the Ground Rent wasn't.

She choose to ignore lots of letters including ones about court proceedings until after the locks were changed on her flat.

She tried as part of her case to argue she didn't receive the letters but the fact that all evidence points to her ignoring them and being not contactable means that argument wasn't believed by the courts. Loads of people and companies use this argument, including utility companies, but often get caught like her.

Regardless of how you own a property, if someone sends you court letters with your name on it you don't ignore them.

There is ambiguity and discretion within the law; under your argument if a leaseholder breaks the terms of the lease then there is a right to forfeit for ever. With rent forfeit is redeemable for six after possession or on longer at the discretion of a judge. The purpose of possession is to recover the rent, not to gain a windfall of £100,000. Other breaches of the lease could be the keeping of pets and animals; such a breach is not redeemable and the lease would be forfeit for ever. Therefore, under your strict interpretation of the law, an old lady who keeps a goldfish would lose her home.

There are several presidents to point out that the CA decision was wrong, not least:

Expert Clothing Service & Sales Ltd -v- Hillgate House Ltd; CA 1985
"A breach will only be treated as being irremediable where the consequences of that breach cannot be put right or retrieved for the future."

and the rights of a leasholder

Stretch -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 24 Jun 2003

[WordIsBond]

Which is rather feudal, don't you think?

Also they got guns to defend their condo!

These two things are related. Americans didn't want to be feudal, so they got guns. That's why they put guns in their constitution.

They pay a price with theatre and church shootings. We don't have guns and pay a price with feudalism and a more oppressive government. They don't understand us and we don't understand them. If there weren't an ocean in between, we'd probably be fighting them all the time.

[expat]

... In this country all land belongs to the crown, we just have certain rights to it...

Which is rather feudal, don't you think?

[SueEllen]

Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court was refused despite the fact the Court of Appeal was wrong. This case is now a dangerous president.

All Leases have this clause about repossession but not many people (and lawyers) understand the repercussions.

The Court of Appeal wasn't wrong.

The higher courts look at how the law is applied and interpreted very strictly.

There was nothing in the laws she was using to argue her case that actually backed her up.

She made it clear at least twice that correspondence for the flat should be sent to the flat with written evidence to back this up.

While it was proven in earlier proceedings the Service Charges were serviced incorrectly the Ground Rent wasn't.

She choose to ignore lots of letters including ones about court proceedings until after the locks were changed on her flat.

She tried as part of her case to argue she didn't receive the letters but the fact that all evidence points to her ignoring them and being not contactable means that argument wasn't believed by the courts. Loads of people and companies use this argument, including utility companies, but often get caught like her.

Regardless of how you own a property, if someone sends you court letters with your name on it you don't ignore them.

[AtW]

In this country all land belongs to the crown, we just have certain rights to it...

You have right to pay ground rent...

You have right to remain silent...

[eek]

Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court was refused despite the fact the Court of Appeal was wrong. This case is now a dangerous president.

All Leases have this clause about repossession but not many people (and lawyers) understand the repercussions.

Now drink up your plutonium cocoa and go to bed.

Permission to appeal to the supreme court is only given if there is a matter of law to be contested. As there is already case law in this regard (no matter how wrong you think it is) there are no grounds for appeal beyond the Court of Appeal..

Oh and the law is right in this regard. In this country all land belongs to the crown, we just have certain rights to it...

[AtW]

This message is hidden because Paddy is on your ignore list.

[Paddy]

It clearly was not good enough. I fear she does not have money to get to the Supreme Court - situation that somebody can force sell house for £100k and pocket all money when debt is only £1k is crazy, totally perverse even if her lease contract said exactly that.

Might Putin's lover Paddy from my ignore list when he posts one more interesting thing...

Permission to Appeal to the Supreme Court was refused despite the fact the Court of Appeal was wrong. This case is now a dangerous president.

All Leases have this clause about repossession but not many people (and lawyers) understand the repercussions.

Now drink up your plutonium cocoa and go to bed.

[eek]

It clearly was not good enough. I fear she does not have money to get to the Supreme Court - situation that somebody can force sell house for £100k and pocket all money when debt is only £1k is crazy, totally perverse even if her lease contract said exactly that.

Might Putin's lover Paddy from my ignore list when he posts one more interesting thing...

I'm sure there is already case law on this. Basically she was a muppet and lost out. THe person with the ground rent won..

Unfortunately it will mean that the ground rents a buy on the odd occasion will be higher in the future...

[AtW]

The current solicitor did the best they could in the situation.

It clearly was not good enough. I fear she does not have money to get to the Supreme Court - situation that somebody can force sell house for £100k and pocket all money when debt is only £1k is crazy, totally perverse even if her lease contract said exactly that.

Might Putin's lover Paddy from my ignore list when he posts one more interesting thing...