Urgent Civil Injustice Help with Legal fees

NO MONEY=LITIGANTS IN PERSON=NO JUSTICE 22 MINUTES TO RUIN LIVES

WE ARE A MUM AND DAUGHTER Pam & Jerry Khan WHO HAVE HAD OUR LIVES WRECKED FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS WHICH IS WHY WE ARE MAKING THIS APPEAL FOR HELP

 

LATEST NEWS As of 18.4.2020 IMPACT on us COVID-19 LOCKDOWN has caused

us to be Debarred from defending the latest money claim approx £42,000 that we

know of, as we have no papers of actual costs to be claimed. We are NOT allowed to

participate just listen to the latest chapter of our story where are lives have been

systematically wrecked. We could not serve papers as LOCKDOWN #stayhome

restrictions do not allow 80 year old's or those on immune surpressants or in fact anyone to go out and about. THIS IS Why we notified the Court on the 26th MArch to

ask for Directions , told a Judge would do this 4.2.2020. NOTHING from the Court

even after follow up emails until Yesterday receiving 2 contradictory orders. SEE

ABOVE

#COVID-19 being used against us, it is hard enough to deal with without the added

pressure and stress. I AM 80 MY DAUGHTER HAS HAD HER HEALTH DESTROYED

PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY (last Judge mocked her illness & referred to her as

Mental) and AS A FREELANCER SHE HAS SEEN HER WORK STOP as

with so many others. PLEASE HELP to quote the Judge " your in the last chance

saloon" only because we can't fund Litigation against a Millionaire. As a Lawyer stated this is a" MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE" and we face losing EVERYTHING . 

Added to the above the petition to bankrupt me which I have opposed was listed to be heard on 16.4.2020 after trying for days to find who to contact I managed to email a

court to ask what was happening; I was told the petition was to dealt with by BT Meet me ie on the phone; the next thing i new was an email about 40 minutes before, I was informed, I must phone the court with a reference number provided. I did this and after 3 attempts connected; fortunately for me the judge agreed the court were at fault and asked if I felt I could deal with a hearing then, I said no and he adjourned it. I do not know when it will be but I do not think it should be on a phone; the judge commented "this is

very serious for you" I replied "yes it is my life" he went very quiet.

My daughter had also tried to contact the court in London, her hearing was listed for

the 6.4.2020 and after many attempts she was told there was nobody in the

bankruptcy section; it is now the 19.4.2020 she has heard nothing at all; there may be a letter at her home but she is trapped with me due to lock down and is really scared she may already have been may bankrupt; her life ruined when she has done nothing

wrong. THIS HAS TO STOP.

UPDATE 9.3.2020  

IT GETS WORSE AND WORSE AS WE HAVE NOW BEEN PETITIONED BY THE

ABSENT LEASEHOLDER/CLAIMANT TO BE MADE BANKRUPT .

AS ORDERED BY THE MASTER (judge) IN THE SENIOR COSTS COURT WE RETURNED TO WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT AND MADE AN APPLICATION 1.9.19 TO HAVE THE ORDER FOR COSTS MADE IN 2017 'SET ASIDE'

MEANWHILE A FURTHER CLAIM HAD BEEN MADE AGAINST US BY THE

LEASEHOLDER FOR UNREASONABLY WITH HOLDING A LICENCE TO SUBLET HIS FLAT AGAIN WITH COSTS SAID TO BE £38000.00

OUR APPLICATION HAD TWO PARTS TO 'SET ASIDE THE ORDER WRITTEN IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING 12.9.17 THEN COPIED WORD FOR WORD BY THE JUDGE BUT ALSO AS ADVISED BY ANOTHER JUDGE TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FLAT TO INSPECT THE POTENTIAL FIRE RISK AND NOISE NUISANCE; WHICH NEEDED TO BE DONE BY THE NEXT HEARING LISTED FOR 27.9.19.ON 26.9.19 HAVING HAD NO REPLY WE PHONED THE COURT WHO SAID THE JUDGE WOULD DEAL WITH

IT BEFORE THE HEARING THE FOLLOWING DAY.

ON 27.9.19 THE JUDGE TURNED OUT TO BE THE SAME ONE WHO HAD 

ACCEPTED MISREPRESENTATION IN 2017; SHE WAS TO JUDGE ON HER OWN ERROR AND SET ASIDE HER OWN JUDGEMENT! SHE DID NOT< SHE REJECTED THE 1st PART OF THE APPLICATION TO 'SET ASIDE' SAYING IT MADE NO SENSE;SHE IGNORED THE SECOND PART JUST TOLD US TO MAKE ANOTHER APPLICATION, ANOTHER £100.00.; WE HAVE SPENT OVER £500.00 IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS ON APPLICATIONS.

AT THE HEARING 27.9.19 THE CLAIMANT HAD A NEW BARRISTER ACTING; HE STARTED THE HEARING BY TELLING THE JUDGE SHE HAD ACCEPTED AN ORDER WRITTEN IN ADVANCE OF A HEARING AND THEN COPIED IT WORD FOR WORD; HE CONTINUED BY TELLING HER WE HAD NOT REFUSED TO PROVIDE THE LICENCE TO ALTER GIVING THE DATES WE SENT IT<THE DATE IT WAS RECEIVED AND NAMED THE PERSON WHO HAD SIGNED IT IN THE CLAIMANT'S SOLICITORS. HE CONFIRMED THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL'S DECISION WAS " NOT BINDING" AS THEY HAD NOT JUDGED ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE CLAIMANT'S FLAT; HE TOLD 

THE JUDGE THERE WAS NO CONSENT FOR THE WORKS CARRIED OUT THAT BREACHED THE LEASE BY ENCROACHING ON TO THE FREEHOLDERS (OUR)

PROPERTY, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE CLAIMANT SAID BUILDING

CONTROL HAD NOT ASKED FOR EXTRA WORKS AND IT WAS NOT PART OF

THE BUILDING CONTROL APPLICATION OR CERTIFICATE; ALL THIS WAS IGNORED AND NOT NOTED IN THE WRITTEN JUDGEMENT.

WE HAD NOTICED DURING THE HEARING THE JUDGE WAS SITTING WITH HER

EYES CLOSED,WE WONDERED WHETHER SHE HAD "DOZED OFF" THE WRITTEN

JUDGEMENT SUGGESTS SHE DID: AS IT OMITTED MOST OF WHAT WAS SAID

AND MUCH WRITTEN WAS INACCURATE,INSTEAD IT APPEARED TO RELY ON

A "RIDER TO THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM" WHICH WAS WRITTEN

BY THE FORMER BARRISTER WHO HAD MISLEAD HE COURT IN 2017. 

THE JUDGE WROTE SHE FOUND NEITHER SIDE "PERSUASIVE BUT THEN FOUND

IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMANT/LEASEHOLDER AWARDING COSTS OF £38000.00

WE WERE TOLD WE HAD NO RIGHT TO APPEAL AND THE LEASEHOLDER COULD SUBLET HIS FLAT; WE ASKED IF ANT POTENTIAL TENANT WOULD BE TOLD THERE WAS A POTENTIAL FIRE RISK, WHICH WAS IGNORED. IN THE WRITTEN JUDGEMENT IT WAS STATED IT WAS "NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST" TO REVISIT THE

QUESTION OF FIRE SAFETY IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH;IT HAS NOT.

THE LEASEHOLDER HAS NOW SUBLET HIS FLAT THE NOISE IS HORRENDOUS,

SMELLS OF COOKING FOOD ARE REVOLTING AND NOW A WASHING MACHINE/SPINNER HAS BEEN PUT IN A STORAGE ROOM DIRECTLY OVER THE LOWER

FLA'S GAS BOILER; THIS IS DANGEROUS.

AFTER WE MADE FURTHER APPLICATIONS TO WANDSWORTH COUNTY

COURT ,NOT DEALT WITH, THE WHOLE 3 CASES WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE

LONDON CENTRAL COUNTY COURT, AT FIRST WE FELT QUITE POSITIVE BUT AT

THE HEARING 6.3.2020 THIS CHANGED; THE NAMED JUDGE'S PROFILE SHOWED HE NEW ABOUT PROPERTY BUT AT THE HEARING THIS WAS OF NO INTEREST TO HIM. THE BARRISTER WHO HAD MISLEAD THE JUDGE IN 2017 WAS BACK AND

AGAIN MAKING STATEMENT WHICH WERE NOT ACCURATE. ( A COUPLE OF

FRIENDS HAD AGAIN LENT US MONEY £3000,00 ,HOPING WE WOULD GET

JUSTICE, THIS WAS NOT THE OUTCOME.

THE JUDGE WAS ABUSIVE IN MANNER AND WORD; HE COMMENTED AT LAST WE HAD COME TO OUR SENSES AN HAD REPRESENTATION: HE MOCKED MY DAUGHTER WHO HAS BEEN VERY ILL AS A RESULT OF THE EXTREME STRESS AND FEAR OF LOSING HER HOME OF 26 YEARS STILL ON MORTGAGE WITH JUST 4 YEARS

TO GO; WHICH AT ONE POINT HOSPITALISED HER AND HAS MEANT SHE HAS 

ONGOING TREATMENT: AS A SELF EMPLOYED PERSON THIS HAS DESTROYED

A LONG SUCCESSFUL CAREER AS SHE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO ACCEPT WORK,

MEANING NO INCOME; HE REFUSED TO ACCEPT ANOTHER JUDGES ORDER WHICH SAID I COULD ACT FOR BOTH OF US IF THE NEED AROSE: WE DO NOT LIVE NEAR EACH OTHER AND TO HAVE TO BOTH MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR THE SAME THING WOULD DOUBLE THE COSTS. HE COMMENTED ON MY DAUGHTER BEING ILL REFERRING TO HER AS BEING "MENTAL" SHE IS NOT SHE HAS A PHYSICAL

ILLNESS MADE WORSE BY STRESS. HE COMMENTED SHE WOULD SURELY NOT

WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH ALL "RUBBISH WRITTEN"

WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED A DRAFT ORDER FOLLOWING THE LAST HEARING

BEING ASKED TO DO CERTAIN HINGS, MAKE APPLICATIONS, APPEAL AND TO

GET A SOLICITOR TO ACT; ALL COSTING A FORTUNE WE DO NOT HAVE. WE 

OWE FRIENDS THOUSANDS ALREADY; ANY SAVINGS WE HAD HAVE GONE TO 

PAY COURT FEES AND REPRESENTATION WHEN POSSIBLE. NEITHER OF US HAVE A PENNY LEFT; HAVE ARREARS ON MORTGAGES AMONG OTHER THINGS.

FOLLOWING THE 1st COSTS ORDER FOR £34803.00 THE HIGH COURT ENFORCEMENT CAME TO VISIT, HAVING SEEN THE PAPERS THEY MADE AN ARRANGEMENT WITH US AND SUGGESTED WE NEEDED TO MAKE A "COUNTER WRIT" WE

MADE ONE PAYMENT IN DECEMBER 19 BUT RECEIVED A LETTER 23.12.19 TELLING US NOT TO MAKE ANY MORE PAYMENTS AS THEY WERE NO LONGER ACTING

IN THE CASE; OUR PAYMENT WAS REFUNDED.

THE NEXT COMMUNICATION WAS TO BE TOLD WE HAD PETITIONS FOR

BANKRUPTCY AGAINST US TO BE HEARD IN APRIL 2020; BOTH BEFORE THE

NEXT LISTED HEARING 22.4.20. MEANWHILE WE HAVE RECEIVED A VERY

THREATENING LETTER SAYING TO HAND OVER THE FREEHOLD AND MAKE

ARRANGEMENTS TO PAY WHICH WE CANNOT DO; THE LETTER POINTING OUT WE COULD BOTH BE MADE HOMELESS.

MY DAUGHTER HAS NEVER SPOKEN TO THIS ABSENT LEASEHOLDER< I HAVE

MET HIM ONCE: WE HAVE BEEN ABUSED AND THREATENED REPEATEDLY SINCE HE PURCHASED THE LEASE: WE MANAGE OUR PROPERTY BUT WE DO NOT

MAKE MONEY FROM DOING SO, WE HAD PREVIOUS OWNERS OF THE LEASE

WITH NO PROBLEM. WE REALLY NEED HELP TO FACE WHAT OUR BARRISTER

TOLD THE JUDGE AT THE LAST HEARING "THIS IS A "MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE"

BUT BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE MONEY , THOUSANDS OF POUNDS TO PAY FOR LEGAL HELP, WE ARE IT APPEARS CO LATERAL DAMAGE. WITH NO RIGHTS.

I AM 80 IN APRIL AND HAVE WORKED SINCE I WAS 17; MY DAUGHTER HA

WORKED SOLIDLY SINCE FINISHING HER EDUCATION.

ARE WE REALLY GOING TO HAVE OUR LIVES DESTROYED AND BE MADE

HOMELESS JUST BECAUSE WE ARE NOT RICH?

UPDATE 13.11.19

FOLLOWING HEARINGS 27.9.19 and 15.10.19 THIS TIME IN RELATION TO THE

NEW CLAIM AGAINST US BY THE LEASEHOLDER FOR PERMISSION TO SUBLET.

WE HAVE NOT REFUSED  BUT HAVE MADE IT CLEAR UNTIL WE ARE A 100%

SURE THERE IS NO FIRE RISK AND IF THERE IS IT IS RECTIFIED WE CANNOT

PROVIDE THE LICENCE TO SUBLET>

UNFORTUNATELY THE HEARINGS 27.9.19 & 15.10.19 WERE BEFORE THE SAME

JUDGE AS HAD ACCEPTED THE PERJURY AND COPIED THE ORDER IN 2017 THE BARRISTER FOR THE CLAIMANT/LEASEHOLDER HAD CHANGED AND HE SPOKE MANY TIMES ON OUR BEHALF< VERY STRANGE> HE TOLD THE JUDGE SHE HAD COPIED AN ORDER WHICH WAS NOT THE TRUTH< HE TOLD HER WE HAD

PROVIDED THE LICENCE TO ALTER< HE POINTED OUT THE VISUAL EVIDENCE 

WE HAD PROVIDED SHOWING THE HOLES IN THE FIRE BOARD< HE TOLD HER

THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNALS DECISION WAS NOT BINDING AS THEY HAD NOT

REPORTED ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND MUCH MORE.

THE JUDGE IGNORED ALL THE BARRISTER SAID AND WHAT WE HAD TRIED TO

SAY: WE WERE NOT PERSUASIVE. WE WERE SAID TO BE WASTING THE COURTS TIME AND NONE OF IT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST!

WE HAD ASKED THE JUDGE AT THE LAST HEARING WHO WAS GOING TO TELL

ANY TENANT THE LEASEHOLDER LET TO THAT THERE WAS A POTENTIAL FIRE

RISK.THERE WAS NO REPLY.

THE JUDGE THEN GAVE THE LEASE HOLDER PERMISSION TO SUBLET HIS FLAT: IN OTHER WORDS TO BREACH HIS LEASE AGAIN. PERMISSION FOR US TO APPEAL WAS AGAIN REFUSED.

WE HAVE BEEN LENT £2000 BY MY BROTHER TO TRY AND GET HELP: THE FIRST SOLICITOR TOLD US TO ALLOW £20/30000 TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

THE SECOND HAS TAKEN £1000.00 TO READ THE PAPERS AND ASKED FOR ANOTHER £2500.00 ON ACCOUNT; AND ANOTHER £1800 FOR A BARRISTER TO READ

THEM. 

WE DO NOT HAVE IT. WE HAVE PAID ANOTHER £100 COURT FEE TO TRY AND

GET MORE TIME TO APPEAL THE LAST JUDGEMENT; WE JUST HOPE THE SAME

JUDGE WILL NOT DECIDE.. WE ARE FACING ANOTHER COSTS HEARING FOR

AROUND £28000.00 AND DAMAGES FOR THE LEASEHOLDER'S LOSS OF RENT

AROUND£1997.00 A MONTH!

WE REALLY NEED HELP OR WE WILL BOTH BE HOMELESS.

.

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

PRESENT.

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 CLAIMANT'S COST LAWYER CALCULATING

THE FINAL FIGURES; AFTER THE MASTER'S 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 £33803.00; 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. ALTHOUGH WHEN TOLD THE MASTER WE HAD SPOKEN TO STAFF IN THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE ADVICE CENTER WHO SAID TO OBTAIN AN ORDER BY LYING TO A JUDGE WAS PERJURY, A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, THE MASTER

(judge) TOLD US TO GO BACK TO WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT AND GET IT

TURNED OVER>

"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 £38000.00 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 s

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 mad

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.

THANK YOU.

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. 

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 he

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 lega

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 further 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 sto

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 was was entitled to the ' 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 lead 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

 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;

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 AND 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.

THANKS AGAIN