Urgent Civil Court injustice help with Legal fees
NO MONEY=LITIGANTS IN PERSON=NO JUSTICE=RUINED LIVES.
WE ARE A MUM AND DAUGHTER Pam & Jerry Khan WHO HAVE HAD OUR LIVES WRECKED FOR THE LAST 3 YEARS WHICH IS WHY WE ARE MAKING THIS APPEAL FOR HELP
UP DATE 7.8.19
ON MONDAY 5.8.19 WE ATTENDED THE THIRD COSTS HEARING ON OUR OWN;DUE TO THE PREVIOUS HEARING BEING CANCELLED ALL THE MONEY WE HAD BEEN LOANED (£2000.00 ) WAS USED: OUR COSTS LAWYER WOULD NEED A
FURTHER £1200 plus vat WHICH WE DID NOT HAVE SO HE CAME " OFF RECORD" AND RETURNED ALL OUR PAPERS.
AT THE HEARING THE SAME COSTS LAWYER WHO ATTENDED 10.6.19 WAS
THE MASTER STARTED BY SAYING HE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE CLAIMANTS "
BUNDLE" DID NOT HAVE THE FILE AND HAD NOT RECEIVED THE REPLIES WE
HAD DISPUTED;IN OTHER WORDS HE HAD MINIMAL PAPER WORK
WE HAD EXPECTED TO BE ASKED FOR OUR COMMENT ON THE CLAIMANTS
REPLIES BUT THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. THIS WAS VERY IMPORTANT AS THE
CLAIMANT'S STATEMENT SHOWED CLEARLY THAT
THE LICENCE TO ALTER HAD BEEN RECEIVED.
THIS WAS POINTED OUT TO THE MASTER BUT MADE NO
DIFFERENCE, HE CARRIED ON WITH THE ASSESSMENT.
ALMOST ALL THE POINTS MADE BY OUR COSTS LAWYER WERE DISMISSED; THE LAWYER FOR THE CLAIMANT DID REFER TO THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS ADVICE ON "PROPORTIONALITY" BUT THE MASTER ( JUDGE) SAID HE DID NOT AGREE;
THIS COULD MEAN VAT WAS NOT PAID, AND SOME OTHER ITEMS.
THE MASTER ALSO REFUSED TO LOOK AT THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES
AMONG MANY OTHER THINGS.
AFTER THE LUNCH BREAK AND THE CLAIMENT'S COST LAWYER CALCULATING
THE FINAL FIGURES; AFTER THE MASTER'ASSESSMENT WE WERE TOLD TO
EXPECT AN ORDER FOR AROUND £21000.00 THIS HOWEVER
WAS NOT THE CASE THE 'MASTER' TOLD US HE ASSESSED THE CLAIM AT
AROUND £33775.00; THIS BEING FOR 3x 30 MINUTE DIRECTIONS HEARINGS.
.NO TRIAL AND NO EVIDENCE CONSIDERED ie AROUND £366.00 A MINUTE!
WE DO NOT HAVE THIS MONEY AND FEAR WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO US AND
OUR ONLY HOMES IF WE CANNOT TRY AND TAKE THIS FURTHER; BUT COURT
FEES ARE HUGE AS IS LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN AWARDED BY THE MASTER ( JUDGE) WITH THE FULL
KNOWLEDGE THE AWARD WAS MADE BY THE CLAIMANT'S BARRISTER LYING
TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE AT THE DISPOSAL HEARING .
NOBODY IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM WILL LISTEN;
NOBODY IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM WILL TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH WHAT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A FRAUDULENT CLAIM; ALL THEY SAY
IS "GET LEGAL ADVICE" WITH WHAT ? WE ASK, WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY
TO DO SO.
"You will be clear by now that I have both the determination and the money to pursue this matter as far as I have to through the courts. I am therefore prepared to offer you the following settlement to reduce the costs payable by you to £5000.00. In return you both agree to transfer to me the Freehold Interest for a nominal sum, you both agree not to apply for the right to own, right to manage or any similar right in respect of the property in the future"
The above was received from an absent Lease holder, a week after he was given permission to Alter his flat "as if " he had a licence, from us as his Freeholders, by a DISTRICT JUDGE ; when THE TRUTH was he had been given a Licence one month before a 30 minute 'Disposal Hearing' in Wandsworth County Court; at that Hearing the Leaseholder's barrister told the Judge We, as Freeholders / Defendants in the case brought against us had "failed and/or refused" to provide a Licence to Alter. The Royal Mail tracking document proves otherwise., that is the Leaseholder's Solicitors received and signed for the Licence. The outcome of the Disposal Hearing being Costs of over £40000.00, at that time, were awarded to the leaseholder.
This appeal for help is being made by myself Pam (79 retired ) and my daughter Jerry (Freelance/self employed) who face losing everything including our homes unless we can put an end to this dishonest claim made against us; unfortunately we, unlike the Leaseholder, do not have the money required to pay for legal representation, if we had this would never have happened. This is a desperate situation which we have been trying to deal with, on our own, for over three years; it has taken over our lives and cost us any savings we had. We have had to deal with legal papers which are often difficult to understand, likewise the legal procedures, which have been abused by the Leaseholder's legal representatives a number of times; There is no assistance from the courts, the response always being "get legal advice".
If we are able to obtain your help which is needed initially within the next month, we will use it to obtain the legal representation we so badly need; to fight both the Costs Claim against us, which at present amounts to £36,412.20, to be heard in early June.
We will then fight the second claim the leaseholder has now made against us amounting to £25000.00 for , he states, for delay in us giving him a 'Licence to Sublet' his flat; as we have told him we need to obtain access to our property/ my daughter's home, so THE POTENTIAL FIRE RISK AND SOUND PROTECTION can be dealt with.; to date he has refused us this access if we bring our Structural Engineer with us; our Expert who understands the Floating for we had to install at the time we converted the property to ensure the safety of anyone living, or visiting the property and of course our neighbours.
Any money received but not used will be donated to Bar Pro Bono or legal Funding so others, who need it, can obtain help. If you are unable to donate please pass our story on in any way you can. All help will be much appreciated.
We know if we had had legal Representation when the first claim was made against us we would not be in the position we are today. We have done NOTHING WRONG; the Claim made against us was obtained by the Leaseholder's barrister Misrepresenting the factual evidence to a Judge at a 30 minute hearing; a Judge that had heard no evidence, who allowed a LEASE TO BE OVER RULED, WHO COPIED AN ORDER WRITTEN IN ADVANCE OF A HEARING, WHICH CLAIMED OVER £40000.00 at that time. If we had representation this would have been challenged, We tried but were told by the judge she had made her Judgement; likewise our right to Appeal was refused. If we had been represented an Application for Relief of Sanctions would have been possible. As litigants in Person we had no way of knowing this was possible. ( later bar Pro Bono told us they were seeking a barrister to look into the validity of the last two hearings 31.7.17 and 12.9.17 but unfortunately they have never been able to find anyone)
We really hope you will read our story and feel able to help us with a donation, anything you can afford would be appreciated. I am 79 and have worked since I was 17 supporting myself and my family without help from the state. Like many I am on a fixed income which is far from substantive.Dealing with this Leaseholder's vexatious claims has taken over both my life and my daughter's . It is a complete nightmare. Court Fees for Applications have added up to hundreds of pounds,. Money from a valued family friend has enabled us to pay a costs lawyer to try and reduce the Costs Claim against us; but we really feel we must pay this back . There will be further substantial fees needed for representation at the next Hearing 10.6.19 if we are to stand any chance of the Costs claim being either reduced or at best dismissed.
Worst of all my daughters health has been destroyed; she has a condition which is badly effected by stress. she has ended up being admitted to hospital and then needing ongoing treatments as an out patient. As a self employed person this has made obtaining and carrying out work almost impossible, meaning she cannot earn; but mortgage companies are not interested in such things ; and she cannot get benefits.
If we cannot obtain the legal help we need we could , as we have already said, lose our homes; and we will not be rehoused. We could end up with CCJs against us or be bankrupted' All as a result of this Leaseholder's vexatious, dishonest Claims with his sole aim being to force us into giving him the Freehold of our property. my daughters home; as he has made clear to us, to quote his own words " as you know I have the determination and the money to pursue this matter as far as I need to through the courts" THIS IS WHAT THIS ABSENT LEASEHOLDER HAS DONE AND CONTINUES TO DO.
If you have time we have set out how this has all come about, how, in our case, a complete stranger purchased the lease of the upper flat in our property; the flat where I used to live, a lease that allows for one family occupation only A stranger who has no intention of ever living there, who owns many properties; a stranger who has sent many abusive emails telling us we do not understand the English language among many other abusive statements and accused my daughter of lying to the Insurers, who immediately contradicted this. along with many letters threatening us with Court actions for one reason or another.
PLEASE HELP US. BEFORE WE LOSE EVERYTHING AND OUR LIVES DESTROYED EVEN FURTHER; WHEN WE HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. BELOW WE SET OUT OUR STORY AND HOW WHAT WE ARE FACING HAS ARISEN. WE HOPE YOU WILL HAVE TIME TO READ IT.
OUR STORY ( with all the details : which makes it quite a long read but we feel it really shows what we have been through we appreciate your time given to reading it.)
Following my divorce I had been obliged to sell our family home and share the profits with my x husband. I had three children to look after which I managed to do without any maintenance or benefits; likewise I managed to persuade a Building Society to give me a mortgage to buy another property and keep a roof over our heads. In 1993 we were able to move back to west London where the children grew up and went to school and had friends.
My eldest daughter, having finished her education was now earning, so we purchased a small terraced house with a joint mortgage which we converted it into two flats, splitting the Title Deeds and the mortgage and created two long leasehold flats. I became leaseholder owner occupier of the upper flat, my daughter the leaseholder owner occupier of the lower flat where she still lives and continues paying off her mortgage.
We became joint Freeholders and remain so, managing the property ourselves; we do not make any money from doing so except £100.00 a year ground rent from the upper flat!
In 1999 I moved out of London, for work purposes, and sold my Leasehold interest in the upper flat but remained as a joint Freeholder. The worst thing I ever did but who was to know how property prices would rocket. Between 1999 and 2015 there were three leasehold owner occupiers of my old flat; the lease allows for one family occupation only . We had the odd problem but all resolved without much difficulty.
In May 2015 our lives changed, when the upper flat's Lease was purchased by the current Leaseholder, who it soon became clear had no intention of living in the flat; he had purchased the lease as a Commercial investment to add to his property kingdom. His plan , to Alter the flat to create a 4th bedroom and then to Sublet it. which he told us was usually to "young professionals who could afford the rent". The Lease allows for 'One family occupation only' and to alter or sublet a Licence is required from the Freeholders "not to be unreasonably denied or delayed" in other words a Licence from us.
The Lease also states, a Licence is required from the Freeholders for Alterations to be carried out and, Plans and Specifications should be provided for prior approval from the Freeholders, these we requested, to show to our Expert. The first set of plans received were rejected as they breached the lease and encroached on the Freeholder's property. A new outline plan was then received and Solicitors were instructed to deal with the Applications .
31st of May 2016 a Draft' licence to Alter'was sent to the Leaseholder's Solicitors; meanwhile the Leaseholder had given an undertaking to pay all reasonable costs, legal and surveyors fees, ( as required by his lease,) whether a licence is or is not granted.
Two and a half months after receiving the Draft Licence in a letter dated 18.8.16 the leaseholder accepted the Draft Licence and all but one of the conditions ( a premium) ; 7 days was given for us to reply; but on the same day as that letter 18.8.16 the Leaseholder went to Wandsworth County Court and lodged a Claim against us citing "unreasonable delay in providing a Licence to Alter, at this time the Application to sublet had not been followed up; We only found out about the claim made on receipt of Court papers a few weeks later; and on informing our solicitors discovered neither had they been notified.
At a meeting with our Solicitors we were informed now the case was in litigation we would have to find £1000.00 plus vat to brief a barrister to write our Defence and should allow £40000.00 if the case went to trial. just days later our Solicitors came "off record", we had told them we did not have that kind of money and would have to ask Bar pro Bono if they could assist us
( a charity that helps those who cannot afford legal representation ) We made a formal complaint to our solicitors who we felt had been negligent in allowing it to reach the point of litigation and in response "as a gesture of goodwill" they agreed to brief a barrister to write the Defence and at the meeting with the barrister we were told if the case went to trial he would represent us. The Defence was thorough and fair and importantly said we had done nothing wrong; we had only asked the Leaseholder to meet the requirements of his lease.
Soon after we were informed the Barrister could no longer act for us, the Chambers had been mislead believing our Solicitor was still representing us , having not informed the Chambers they had come off record.
In other words we were now on our own Litigants in Person. without any legal training or knowledge; and as we discovered No assistance from the Court or legal representatives; if anything the Leaseholder/claimants team used our position to their advantage. We have learnt since Solicitors should not come off record if it puts their client in a worse position than they already were.
THERE HAS BEEN NO TRIAL
ONLY 3 HALF HOUR DIRECTION HEARINGS
and yet we are now facing a Costs Claim of £36,416.20 and a further claim just launched by the Leaseholder for up to £25000.00 in relation to his recent request for a Licence to Sublet.
There have been three 30 minute Hearings before three different District Judges; with two different barristers representing the Leaseholder.
Directions Hearing One..the Leaseholder's barrister tried to hand papers to the district judge which had not previously been lodged in the court,( a breach of procedure) she rejected them; a few minutes later the judge told the barrister to stop bullying her saying she new how to do her job.. It was a fair and thorough hearing. The Leaseholder was told to abide by his Lease, provide plans and specifications we, his freeholders, could show to our Expert, a Structural Engineer; if agreed they would be passed to Building Control for approval; after which the full Licence to Alter would be provided.
The Leaseholder failed to fulfill this Order; instead he made a Fast Track Building Notice Application which only requires outline plans.Building Control raised No Objections. In spite of asking a few times for the plans and specifications We only received a copy of the application a month after it had been made and agreed; two emails and 2 letters asking where the Plans etc had been ignored.
Directions Hearing Two.. a new Judge and a different barrister representing the Leaseholder.Again papers not previously lodged in the court, which we have never seen were handed to the Judge who, this time, accepted them. We tried to point out the previous Order had not been fulfilled by the Leaseholder but were told "in a nutshell" or to " be quiet."
The barrister was asked about the discussions and agreements previously reached but replied he did not know because he was not at the 1st Hearing. Then asked by the Judge what he wanted he replied an "Unless Order" and for us to be debarred from defending the claim against us; a claim for Costs was also made the barrister saying he had worked on the case for a month. We had had no dealings with him.
" a bit harsh" said the judge but then agreed giving us 7 days, at first but after objecting 14. days to send the Licence to Alter.
( 'Unless Orders' we learnt later are meant to be used as a last resort where a party refuses or fails to fulfill a previous order) We had not failed in any way.
We posted the Licence to Alter on 11.8.17, one month before the next hearing.The Licence was received and signed for by the Leaseholder's Solicitors 14.8.17 confirmed by the Royal mail Tracking document.
On receipt of notification there was to be a Disposal Hearing we made an Application ( Fee £100.00 ) for an adjournment as we had applied to Bar Pro Bono for help. The adjournment was refused the day before the Hearing but said we could raise it at the Hearing.
The Disposal Hearing.. was again before a new District Judge who also accepted documents from the leaseholder's Barrister; the same one who had attended the 1st Hearing had returned; a discussions between the Judge and Barrister, on entering the court, took place but was impossible to hear. ( we had been handed some papers minutes before entering the court room leaving no time to look at them) One document accepted by the judge turned out to be an Order prepared in advance of that Hearing by the leaseholder's Counsel; this order stating "on hearing counsel for the claimant and defendants in person" obviously not the case; then stating we "the defendants had failed and /or refused to provide the ' Licence to Alter" ; the Barrister in attendance new this not to be the case; that it was a blatant misrepresentation of the truth; in other words a lie.
We tried to tell the Judge we had provided the licence her reply "I have made my judgement" when we said we would have to Appeal, her response was we had "No Right of Appeal" it had gone on long enough and we had had plenty of time to get legal help. (only if you have money) We said we had asked Bar Pro Bono to help and were waiting to hear from them. The Barrister thought this was funny laughingly saying "they are just a charity"
( we heard the same afternoon Pro Bono had accepted our case and would try to find us help; unfortunately they have not been able to, probably because so many people need help.)
We had also tried to raise the question of an adjournment but were immediately silenced saying we had been refused.
The Leaseholder was then told he could alter his flat "as if" he had a licence and costs of the claim were awarded; listed at that time as over £40000.00; for 3 x 30 minute hearings? NO TRIAL. This Order allowed the Leaseholder to Breach his Lease, circumvent the Licence he had received and not to pay a Premium.
This judge did not even know who was appearing before her, when entering the court room my daughter was asked if she was there for Moral Support; when she said she was one of the defendants; the Judge's comment being " I was expecting a man".All the paper work shows we are two women.!
The building work commenced soon after without any notification to my daughter as the Resident freeholder/ leaseholder living below; there was all night working. electrical equipment was left running unattended over night, windows directly on to the street were left open all night; one night my daughter had to get up get dressed and go upstairs to knock on the front door to ask the builders to stop working. it was 2,45a.m.
The Leaseholder was not interested only commenting he was working under a court order and all that had gone before was irrelevant; adding as a leaseholder he was entitled to' quiet enjoyment of his flat' in spite of the fact he does not live there and the flat was empty.
The Insurers placed a 'Contractors Exclusion Clause' on the Policy meaning the works would not be covered. and for this reason if anything went wrong. We asked the leaseholder for an Indemnity Insurance to be put in place and for him to provide a Party Notice Agreement; the latter required under law. the Leaseholder refused both, saying our request was absurd.
Soon after the alterations commenced we became aware of works on the Ground floor, which were not included in the Building Notice and for which we had not given consent, These works which encroached on the Freeholder's property, we soon became aware, appeared to have compromised the Fire and Sound protection between the lower and upper flat.
( we have visual evidence showing holes in the gypsum Fire Board and what looks like a hard floor in the kitchen) We immediately requested access to inspect the flat with our Structural Engineer, this has been refused many times. We will be allowed to go and inspect on our own but not with our Expert. ( a breach of the lease)
The Leaseholder then wrote requesting a Licence to Sublet; we replied informing him until we were able to inspect with our Expert to look into the potential Fire risk we could not consider his request as we are not prepared to put anyone living in or visiting the property or our neighbours at risk.
Soon after his request we discovered the leaseholder had already placed the property with an Estate Agent who was describing it as a "House for letting", even though the Leaseholder does not have licence to let it and does not own the house. He is however quite willing to put tenants in a flat where there is a potential Fire risk. We are not; as Freeholders who would be held responsible if there was an accident.
Trying and failing to get access, as the lease allows we went to the First Tier Tribunal (property chamber) believing they would acknowledge the lease had been breached (fee £300,00) Another Decision we regret that not having the money to have a Lawyer with us that would have led to a different outcome .
At the Inspection of the flat the two Tribunal Members walked around with the Leaseholder; they stood on the ground floor discussing some wiring , work for which there was no consent, which encroached on the Freeholders property and had caused the potential Fire Risk; the reason why access is needed. and the reason why we believed the Leaseholder had breached the covenant in his lease.
In spite of being asked not to, the Leaseholder had covered up the works with new carpets, meaning no inspection was possible., which the Judge told us we could not expect the Leaseholder to lift. Instead it was suggested the Resident Freeholder/Leaseholder in the lower flat should have pulled down all her ceilings to look for the damage. the Photos we had taken of the damaged floor showing holes in the Gypsum Fire board were ignored; changes to the kitchen, which appeared to show a new hard floor were dismissed. (The Lease does not allow hard floors.)
The Decision received from the First Tier Tribunal did not uphold our complaint. We were said to be "over egging the pudding" in relation to our concerns about Fire risk.
We were told if the Insurance premium increased due to subletting it was not unreasonable for the other Leaseholder to pay their share of the increase; in other words subsidize the absent Leaseholder's financial gain. The Judge's comment " that is the way of the world some people own lots of property" . We were told we should give a Licence to Sublet, our concerns were, it was stated, being used as a " pre-emptive strike to obtain forfeitures of the lease" (We have NEVER asked for this, in fact it was the leaseholder who has made moves to take advantage ) there was much more.
We provided evidence proving all we told the Tribunal was factually true, when we requested permission to Appeal the Decision; evidence which also proved much of what the Leaseholder's Barrister told the Tribunal was again a misrepresentation of the true facts, this was ignored We were told we could go to the Upper Chamber and seek their consent We could not afford the fee £750.00 which would have taken the fees paid to over £1000.00.
We complained to the Regional Judge and to the Tribunal President of the land Chamber once again including our factual evidence, both ignored our complaint.
On 26.1.18 we received notification of a Costs Claim amounting to £34,473.00 following the Order made at the Disposal Hearing ; written on 28.9.17; we received a further Order dated 13.11.17 exactly the same except the amounts of money had been left off.
We recently learnt that a costs claim has to be made within three months of an order being made; to fulfill the time requirement, this suggested why the date of the first Order had been changed. We informed the Leaseholder's Costs lawyers we would be disputing this claim and asked for validation of the Invoices listed; this was ignored.( we have recently been told there is no requirement for the other party to be given proof of the amounts claimed)
We replied to the Costs Court on receipt of a Provisional Assessment, the written comments were illegible ; we phoned the Costs Court and were told the "Master" (judge) was on holiday and nobody would see his emails; we were told to make an Application ( Fee £100.00 ) asking for clarification and for extra time to try and get legal help to advise whether an Oral Hearing was needed. the wording was clarified but the rest was ignored. The cheque was cashed.
We then received a Completion Certificate informing we should pay the whole claim. We phoned the Costs Court asking why our first Application had not been dealt with; we were told the THE FILE HAD BEEN LOST we should make another Application, which we did, ( Fee £100.00) In return we received Notice of a Hearing 7.2.19. We asked how the case could be dealt with when the court had no paper work.
Meanwhile a valued family friend offered us help by lending us some money to try and rectify this mess! So in November 18 we approached a Direct Access barrister's Chambers.We were told we had to pay £900.00 for the barrister to consider our situation; both the Costs Claim and the new claim made by the Leaseholder, this time for a Licence to Sublet.
After a number of weeks and hearing nothing we emailed the barrister asking what the position was and received a written Defence to the sublet claim; this was late in the evening the night before we had to reply to the County court; leaving no time for alterations we asked for. We posted the Defence only to be told later by the Barrister who wrote it, he thought the other side could challenge some of the points he had made.
In early January we met the barrister for the first time and paid another £750.00 , again, again after three weeks of not hearing anything , we emailed the barrister it was just a week before the Costs Court Hearing ; we had had no feed back following the meeting. the reply being we would have to pay more if we wanted further advice and for him to attend the hearing; we could not afford this so went on our own.
At the Hearing 7.2.19 the Barrister for the Leaseholder who attended the 1st and 3rd of the County Court Hearings and the First Tier Tribunal was present. he wanted the Master (Judge) to find against us, to make an 'Unless Order' this was ignored but the Judge admitted the Costs Court were unable to find the File even in the "Harry Potter archives" not our words .The Judge acknowledged it was exceptional circumstances and gave us 21 days to challenge the costs Claim item by item and decide if an Oral hearing was needed. he warned us we were "teetering on a cliff edge" and said we may be "giving ourselves a longer bit of rope to hang ourselves with" I was truly shocked, as a therapist I know of people who faced with such a comment under extreme stress would have gone out and done exactly that. The Barrister also mentioned a Default Notice, which we have never seen, which the Master said a number of times he must not enforce.
Again with the borrowed money from a very kind family friend, who cannot believe whats happening to us, we found a Costs lawyer who has told us he believes we need an Oral Hearing to challenge the Claim we have been ordered to pay. His Fees around £2000/£2500. We hope to have the claim dismissed but do not hold out much hope based on our experience of the justice system to date. We have been told we should make an "offer of settlement" to avoid paying the Oral Hearing fees which could add between £5 to £10,000.00 , if we lose. We do not have any savings left and besides we owe money to friends; added to which the Award made to the leaseholder was obtained through deception; in other words fraudulently. We have a Hearing 10.6.19. and are again hoping Bar Pro Bono will find us some help.
We are also now facing the second claim,made by the leaseholder, against us for not providing a Licence to sublet; which we are unable to consider until we can be certain nobody is put 'at risk' by the potential fire risk. The claim for costs being up to £25000.00 Our Defence document has been rejected and challenged by the Leaseholder in full , his Solicitors seeking it be struck out and a summary judgement made , allowing him to sublet his flat without the potential Fire risk being inspected by our Expert.
As his Freeholders we have explained our position to the Leaseholder and his Solicitors without success. We are NOT prepared to put anyone at risk including my daughter Jerry. The Insurers have made it clear that if building works are done only works covered by a Building Control Certificate are covered by a Policy which is in Jerry my daughter's name. The works to the ground Floor were not included in the court order or the Building Notice; which is the reason we asked for an Indemnity Insurance to be provided; but refused by the Leaseholder,
We now face having to Defend this latest claim; while at the same time trying to deal with the previous Costs Claim. We cannot do this alone we must get Legal representation but we cannot afford it; which is why we are ASKING FOR YOUR HELP.
FOR US THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT AND EMBARRASSING TO HAVE TO SHARE OUR SITUATION AND APPEAL FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT BUT WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS WE CANNOT BE ALONE, THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY WHO HAVE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN OUR COURTS AND DO NOT GET JUSTICE AS A RESULT. THIS IS WRONG.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS.
17.6.19 UPDATE On 10.6.19 we attended the 2nd Costs Court Hearing, unfortunately our costs lawyer was on holiday so a partner in the firm was sent to represent us. Soon after the last hearing we requested a copy of the hearing;s transcript believing it would be helpful for our representative to see it. We heard nothing from the Costs Court and did not receive it. The Judge mentioned the transcript in passing but suggested it was not relevant, he can say whether a person can or cannot be allowed a copy.
The Hearing was to run from 10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on entering the court room there was a new person representing the claimant/Leaseholder who we assume was from the Costs Company he drew up the claim. he was very aggressive towards us shouting we had chosen to be litigants in person, saying we had had representation early on NOT TRUE; the Judge also referred to "substantial litigation" we assume he refers to the 3 by 30 minute hearings where no evidence was discussed. The Judge asked the other party why they had not replied to the points we had disputed, the reply "it would costs money and the man present said he had not been paid so was out of pocket. We had been given 21 days to file our points of Dispute and had done so on the 28.2.19 as Ordered. The Claimant had had 3 months. The Judge then said the case was "not suitable for a provisional Assessment" it required a detailed Assessment ." we again assumed this would be done on receipt of the other sides comments.
Around 10.50 the Judge told us there would not be time to deal with the Points of Dispute there would have to be a further Hearing (more costs). He informed us he had another "Urgent, Complicated phone hearing to deal with at 1.00 pm. at 11.15 the Judge left the Court. However before he left the Claimant's representative said his client wanted 50% of the claim to be paid on account within 14 days; we were really shocked. Our representative told the judge her client was "not liquid" and we were worried about losing "our house" the property concerned is not a second home, we do not live there together. It is my daughters home of 26 years which she is still paying for; and I live miles away with my house up for sale so I can pay off my interest only mortgage which has run out. No reference was made to the fact my daughter is very ill, in regular attendance at the hospital and had been admitted as an in patient two days after the last hearing. As a Freelance/self employed person she had been unable to to accept more than a couple of jobs meaning she had no income meaning any money she had was used to pay her Bills and Mortgage. her consultant is very concerned by the stress she is under as it is very detrimental to her condition. I am as already stated 79 and on a fixed income
The Judge did not order we pay 50% of the claim but told us we must pay £10000.00 on account by 22.7.19. which the judge suggested was "a small amount" The other side have said they will accept £30000.00 plus interest which we have not accepted; and our representative told us we should make an offer to protect ourselves against Costs for the hearings.
WE CAN DO NEITHER WE HAVE NO MONEY AND ARE FRANTIC .WE WILL SPEAK TO OUR COSTS LAWYER ON HIS RETURN FROM HOLIDAY AND HOPE HE CAN ADVISE. AGAIN THANKS TO ANYONE WHO HAS SO KINDLY TRIED TO HELP PLEASE SHARE OUR STORY WITH OTHERS IN ANY WAY YOU CAN>
PLEASE HELP US ANY AMOUNT NO MATTER HOW SMALL IS SO APPRECIATED! WE REALLY COULD LOSE EVERYTHING MEANING OUR LIVES ARE DESTROYED WHEN WE HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG.