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

silvercar

Jhoney wrote: »

I agree that you should not pay a solicitor to deal with this, but absolutely pay nothing of it. Worst case senario the DC's fees should be payable by the previous vendor and as already mentioned, the MC and solicitors may be a bit nervous too.

Do not ignore it, but do not let this happen SC.

It's a difficult one, the seller and their solicitor had paid the money on completion. So as far as they are concerned the matter is closed. Add to that that they were foreign investors who have never set foot in the UK and they are unlikely to be worrying about this.

I suppose I could message the seller's solicitor saying that the statement they sent was for the wrong flat and see if they will pro actively work to get it corrected, but I doubt their solicitor will want to do any work without payment.

Jhoney_2

silvercar wrote: »

It's a difficult one, the seller and their solicitor had paid the money on completion. So as far as they are concerned the matter is closed. Add to that that they were foreign investors who have never set foot in the UK and they are unlikely to be worrying about this.

I suppose I could message the seller's solicitor saying that the statement they sent was for the wrong flat and see if they will pro actively work to get it corrected, but I doubt their solicitor will want to do any work without payment.

Yes, but 4 months later than due.... However I doubt that they will recover it from them, but as you say, their solicitor made the error and sent the wrong statement, so arguably, if they were here I would expect them to say to their solicitor - "well we paid, but you messed up, so you pay it!" so the question is, in that situation where would the solicitor throw the ball next and who will have to hold onto it - I say not you. No smoke and mirrors, just patently obvious that you are least (if at all) at fault.

My guess would be the MC/MA are most at fault. They instigated the DC (long after the fact that they were actually paid), had the contract with them and failed to correctly record payment or sent the incorrect statement through to vendor's solicitors. Not your problem - albeit they will most probably reclaim it in charges shared between all the leaseholders anyway. I don't have a clue how that works, tbh.

If somehow this did come back to you, I would suggest you throw it right back to your solicitor who did not pass on the statement and failed to check it properly.

Let their insurance or whatever pay for it as you had a contract with them which and their part in the error caused the claim?

It cannot be that you are liable just because you bought the property. Someone dropped the ball, but at those critical junctures , it wasn't you that was in a position to catch it.

chappers

Either way Silvercar is not responsible and the debt was paid as agreed, whoever is responsible for the DC fees is then another matter altogether but they can't be passed on to him as part of the on transferable responsibilities of a leaseholder, as was pointed out very early on in this thread as they will be deemed to be unfair charges as they were erroneously incurred.

If either the MC or the DC takes Sivercar to court his only responsibility will be to prove he is not liable, the small claims court's remit won't be to decide who is, although the case may inadvertently establish that.

DandelionPatrol

Jhoney wrote: »

Surely silvercar did not sign up to taking possession of the leasehold including debts incurred by the previous owner?

When you buy a leasehold, the debt attaches to the property. All leasehold charges are effectively secured on the property. Which means that a lot of what you thought you knew about debt does not apply

Jhoney wrote: »

Yes, you are now liable for the ground rent and management fee etc etc going forward, but not for the fact that the MC failed to obtain payment from SC's vendor for 4months, failed to ensure payment was received to settle outstanding fees on vendors account, engaged DC in OCTOBER when they would have known the property had since changed hands in August.

Why on earth would you be inclined or expected to pay a penny?

I agree that you should not pay a solicitor to deal with this, but absolutely pay nothing of it. Worst case senario the DC's fees should be payable by the previous vendor and as already mentioned, the MC and solicitors may be a bit nervous too.

Do not ignore it, but do not let this happen SC.

DC debts are to a named person and that would not be your name would it? No, because they were not chasing you for anything that accumulated fees were associated with.

The chain of liability for the debt collectors fees is potentially rather long in this case, if the management company did not make the mistake. Provided the fees are reasonable for the difficulty the management company have had over the change of leaseholder, then silvercar probably is responsible. But the seller is responsible to silvercar and the seller's solicitor is responsible to the seller, if that is where the error originated.

silvercar

The chain of liability for the debt collectors fees is potentially rather long in this case, if the management company did not make the mistake. Provided the fees are reasonable for the difficulty the management company have had over the change of leaseholder, then silvercar probably is responsible. But the seller is responsible to silvercar and the seller's solicitor is responsible to the seller, if that is where the error originated.

The management company made the mistake in assigning the payment to the wrong property account. But if it had been spotted earlier it would have avoided debt collection fees, but then you can't rely on someone else spotting your mistakes.

We have no practical recourse to the seller, who is the other side of the world.

We possibly have a case against the seller's solicitor, who was bound to ensure all debts had been paid. It hinges on whether sending my solicitor proof that payment had been made is sufficient or whether the fact they sent a zero balance statement for the wrong account is acceptance by them that they need to send a zero balance statement for the correct property (which of course they can't do).

Curiously, the other property had also not paid their ground rent (due in March) by August. I suppose they won't be interested until they are chased.

TBagpuss

silvercar wrote: »

They only sent me the account last week, so it isn't my error.

The vendor's solicitor undertook to clear arrears on completion, so in a way they didn't do this.

Well, if they gave an undertaking then it is their responsibility to resolve it. They can then fight with their client and the Management Co. over who made the original mistakes.

Jhoney_2

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

When you buy a leasehold, the debt attaches to the property. All leasehold charges are effectively secured on the property. Which means that a lot of what you thought you knew about debt does not apply. This is not a leasehold charge, it is a debt collection charge -

I specifically said I do not know how leaseholds work so not sure what the attitude is about. However it is my opinion that you assume the liabilities and responsibilities for the running of the the property and building - not DC fees incurred by previous owner unless perhaps passed on and absorbed by the collective leaseholders.

The chain of liability for the debt collectors fees is potentially rather long in this case, if the management company did not make the mistake. Provided the fees are reasonable for the difficulty the management company have had over the change of leaseholder, then silvercar probably is responsible. Disagree

But the seller is responsible to silvercar and the seller's solicitor is responsible to the seller, if that is where the error originated. That's what I believe I said - although I am going one further step back to suggest that the error lies with the MC.

Thanks for any informed correction that you have added to the thread. My opinion was and is my own.

silvercar

TBagpuss wrote: »

Well, if they gave an undertaking then it is their responsibility to resolve it. They can then fight with their client and the Management Co. over who made the original mistakes.

I have no contractual relationship with the seller's solicitor, so they are unlikely to offer to sort this.

In any case their client isn't at fault as they took the money from the sale proceeds to pay off the ground rent.

DandelionPatrol

Jhoney wrote: »

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

When you buy a leasehold, the debt attaches to the property. All leasehold charges are effectively secured on the property.

This is not a leasehold charge, it is a debt collection charge -

If the leasehold charge is secured, it follows that any [reasonable] associated debt collection charge is also secured.

Fortunately, silvercar knows what has happened, but the problem is evidence - unless the seller's solicitor comes up with proof that the payment was sent correctly, it will be an uphill battle. However, if the seller's solicitor does not co-operate, there is always the discovery process to get a copy of the Seller's solicitor's letter from the Management company if they take the matter to court

silvercar

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

If the leasehold charge is secured, it follows that any [reasonable] associated debt collection charge is also secured.

Fortunately, silvercar knows what has happened, but the problem is evidence - unless the seller's solicitor comes up with proof that the payment was sent correctly, it will be an uphill battle. However, if the seller's solicitor does not co-operate, there is always the discovery process to get a copy of the Seller's solicitor's letter from the Management company if they take the matter to court

I have a copy of the letter from the seller's solicitor instructing the managing agent as to which property the payment is for. It is bvery clear.