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

silvercar

agrinnall wrote: »

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.

So the ground rent became due in April, that was paid from the sale in August. Bailiffs appointed in October. The statement of account from the freeholders agent hadn't recorded the payment of outstanding ground rent until it was pointed out to them.

DandelionPatrol

silvercar wrote: »

So the ground rent became due in April, that was paid from the sale in August. Bailiffs appointed in October. The statement of account from the freeholders agent hadn't recorded the payment of outstanding ground rent until it was pointed out to them.

Subject to one thing, that is quite clear cut. The freeholders have engaged the debt collector on their own responsibility without cause.

The reservation I have is the possibility that the solicitor did not hand over the money in time. Whose solicitor paid it off and do you know the date it left the solicitor?

Guest101

agrinnall wrote: »

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.

Whilst the company might be bailiffs, they will be acting as debt collectors, unless there is a court order. (which if there is, the OP would realistically know about it).


Debt collectors typically get paid as a % of the collection amount.


Certainly the fees cant be attached to the property.

Guest101

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Subject to one thing, that is quite clear cut. The freeholders have engaged the debt collector on their own responsibility without cause.

The reservation I have is the possibility that the solicitor did not hand over the money in time. Whose solicitor paid it off and do you know the date it left the solicitor?

It doesn't matter. The debt relates to a period of time when the OP wasn't legally liable for the fees.


Here's how it would go in court:


Judge: So what are these fees for?
Claimant: Ground rent from period X-Y
Judge: But the lease for Mr/Miss/Mrs/Dr etc..... only applies from Y-Z?
Claimant: oh yes, well.....

wwl

Tell the vendor that unless this is resolved with no further inconvenience to you, you will take action for harrassment, and that any further time spent by you in dealing with it will be charged at £x per hour or part thereof.

Guest101

wwl wrote: »

Tell the vendor that unless this is resolved with no further inconvenience to you, you will take action for harrassment, and that any further time spent by you in dealing with it will be charged at £x per hour or part thereof.

Don't listen to this 'advice'.


1: This is the freeholders error
2: Harassment cannot be 3rd party - only the person/entity doing the 'harassment' can be charged with 'harassment'
3: You cannot charge the Vendor any money, as there is no contract. You can offer a contract to the bailiffs / freeholder. In terms of stop this nonsense, or I will counter claim at rate of £x per hour. (since the bailiffs are acting as agents)


Try to post atleast reasonably accurate things

eddddy

A few thoughts...

- I wouldn't be asking a solicitor to get involved in a dispute over £200 - it doesn't make financial sense.


- This is a leaseholder/landlord dispute about 'unreasonable service charges'. Is your solicitor experienced in this area? The leasehold advisory service will give you free advice over the phone. http://www.lease-advice.org/aboutus/


- Your lease is your contract with the freeholder - you have taken over all liability under the lease. As a starting point, you need to see what it says about debt collection fees. e.g. Are they payable by the individual leaseholder, or just added to everyone's service charges.


- if you successfully avoid payment personally, I suspect the freeholder will just add the charges to the block service charge anyway (and you will have to pay a portion). Again this becomes an issue around 'unreasonable service charges'. Again, the LAS could advise on this.

DandelionPatrol

Guest101 wrote: »

It doesn't matter. The debt relates to a period of time when the OP wasn't legally liable for the fees.


Here's how it would go in court:


Judge: So what are these fees for?
Claimant: Ground rent from period X-Y
Judge: But the lease for Mr/Miss/Mrs/Dr etc..... only applies from Y-Z?
Claimant: oh yes, well.....

Obviously, you are blissfully unaware that ground rent debt is attached to the property. So if the previous leaseholder did not pay in April, silvercar would now be liable. Which is why this was addressed in the purchase process.

So your Court dialog is spurious on that count and also on the further count that it is not ground rent which is in question, it is the debt collectors' fee.

TBagpuss

the dialogue would be more like:

Judge: What do the fees related to?
Claimant: Bailiff dees for collecting over due ground rent
Judge: When wer ethe fees incurred?
Claimant: October 2015
Judge: defendent - why do you think you shouldn't pay these costs
Defencent: Because the rent was paid in full in August 2015. The bailiffs appear to have been instructed due to an admin error bu the freeholder who failed to record that pauyment had been received. Here's a copy of the receipt from the freeholders dated August 2015

Guest101

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Obviously, you are blissfully unaware that ground rent debt is attached to the property. - Obviously its ground rent for the property, but that doesn't make the OP liable. So if the previous leaseholder did not pay in April, silvercar would now be liable. - Not really since the fees have been paid. Even if Silvercar was liable ( which they aren't ), clearly debt recovery processes haven't been followed. These aren't bailiffs (since bailiffs enforce court orders) and court order require a respondent - which isn't a property! Which is why this was addressed in the purchase process.

So your Court dialog is spurious on that count and also on the further count that it is not ground rent which is in question, it is the debt collectors' fee. - Yes I know it's debt collectors fees, the point is those fees relate to a debt incurred prior to the OP taking over. This is NOT connected to the property, but connected to the individual being chased.

The Ground rent is paid. It was paid prior to the debt enforcement action.


The fees are unenforceable for that reason, as well as the fact that the OP was never in arrears.


But you know that, so i'm not sure why your being difficult.