Chased for a debt that previous owners settled: updated post 35

silvercar

Purchased a leasehold flat in August.

A week ago we get a bailiffs letter claiming we owe ground rent. I contact the solicitor who acted for us, he confirms that the ground rent owing was paid over by the vendor's solicitor at the time of completion. he agrees to chase this up. Today he emails to say that the freeholder now accepts that the ground rent was paid but that their charges for the debt collectors still need to be paid! Our solicitor asks if we are prepared to pay this in order to close the matter and avoid fees from him in taking it further! I don't know if it is reasonable or not.

My options are:
a) to say no and leave him fight on our behalf to get the debt colection fees removed (but then have solicitor fees)
b) suggest to him he should be doing this free, but he obviously feels it is reasonable to charge.
c) to pay under protest just to close the matter.
d) anything else?

Marktheshark

E ask the solicitor to establish what is known as legal liability and if they can not, ask which cornflake box he cut his law degree out of.

Guest101

Ignore?

You don't owe anything. Let them take it to court if they wish- claim back costs.

- though just check u don't have a ccj. Bailiffs enforce court orders. But some debt collectors are bailiffs too and it gets confused in the letters.

missbiggles1

How much are you talking about?

silvercar

Marktheshark wrote: »

E ask the solicitor to establish what is known as legal liability and if they can not, ask which cornflake box he cut his law degree out of.

He has told us that we aren't liable, it is just that his costs in getting through to them that they should set the debt collectors straight and cover the costs they have incurred, could outweigh the actual charges.

silvercar

missbiggles1 wrote: »

How much are you talking about?

Nearly £200.

Marktheshark

silvercar wrote: »

He has told us that we aren't liable

Then do nothing and ignore them.

chappers

or contact the freeholder yourself tell them you have taken legal advice and are not legally responsible for their error in engaging the debt collectors and you won't be paying.
I had a similar situation a few years ago when the council set the bailiffs on me for council tax that was my tenant's responsibility, they finally agreed I wasn't liable for the CT but refused to call off the bailiffs who were hassling me for their fee, eventually I took some legal advice and when I mentioned this to them they agreed they would pay the fees.
Just stick to your guns.

moneyistooshorttomention

chappers wrote: »

or contact the freeholder yourself tell them you have taken legal advice and are not legally responsible for their error in engaging the debt collectors and you won't be paying.
I had a similar situation a few years ago when the council set the bailiffs on me for council tax that was my tenant's responsibility, they finally agreed I wasn't liable for the CT but refused to call off the bailiffs who were hassling me for their fee, eventually I took some legal advice and when I mentioned this to them they agreed they would pay the fees.
Just stick to your guns.

I'd be inclined to take this viewpoint:T

They should have checked their records to see whether they had been paid or no. The fact that they didn't do so is down to them - and I'm sure this is how a small claims court would see it if it came to it.

I would say its just a try-on and ignore it and I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't want to be standing in front of some judge in said small claims court being asked as to whether they checked their records thoroughly before pursuing you for someone else's bill.

They will also be factoring their time into whether its worth pursuing you for a bill as small as £200 and almost certainly decide they could use that time more beneficially on something else.

agrinnall

There seems to be an assumption by most posters that the bailiffs were engaged in error. I don't see anything to support that theory - I think it is more likely that the previous owner of the property did owe the ground rent and that the freeholder got fed up of them not paying so asked bailiffs to recover the debt. The debt has now been paid, but the bailiff fees haven't.

If this is what's happened then it seems logical that the previous owner is the one that the freeholder/bailiffs should be pursuing for payment of fees, but as I'm not a lawyer I don't know whether such fees attach to the person or the property.

moneyistooshorttomention

Then logically - they would know that the fees were due from previous owners and therefore the bailiff fees for chasing those fees would also fall to the previous owner.

Its up to the freeholder to sort it out between themselves and the previous owner. I think they'd find it very difficult (ie impossible) to try and separate out the fees and bailiff costs into being covered by two separate households (when both costs fall to previous owner).

There must be a legal principle somewhere that states words to effect of "any costs of chasing a debt apply to the debtor themselves personally". Well that's up to that freeholder to check whether that is actually the case or no and not just take the easy way out of trying to chase a total stranger for the debtors' debt (ie chasing OP).