Ex partner trying to get money out of me

NYM

I don't think it's a good idea to ignore his Solicitors letter. What I would suggest is to photocopy the letter he wrote stating you were his LL and that he was renting from you. Send it with a letter from you just simply stating;

Dear 'Solicitor'

Please see attached.

Kind regards,

Former Landlady.

audigex

NYM wrote: »

I don't think it's a good idea to ignore his Solicitors letter. What I would suggest is to photocopy the letter he wrote stating you were his LL and that he was renting from you. Send it with a letter from you just simply stating;

Dear 'Solicitor'

Please see attached.

Kind regards,

Former Landlady.

There's no obligation to respond to a ridiculous claim (or a sensible one, for that matter), but personally I'd find a good solicitor and get them to draft a quick letter along the lines of the above but with a couple of relevant well-phrased points of law.

After that, I'd ignore them until a court summons came through, and just make sure I had filed copies of everything I might need.

paddy's_mum wrote: »

Might it be worth considering an offer of, say, £5000 as a full and final settlement?

Of course, I realise that it would go against both the grain and your priniciples but sometimes, to avoid hassle, upset and stress, it's worth 'buying' a bit of peace.

Good luck.

That's a horrendous idea, never reward a bully even for "a bit of peace" - it just encourages him to do the same to some other poor sod.

If you're going to lose £5k, lose it defending the case and costing him £5k too, rather than making him £5k better off!

brewthebear

paddysmum what a stupid suggestion....here a stupid suggestion why dont you pay him for her instead !!!

tiger_eyes

Just to clarify, did he pay toward the mortgage while he lived with you? If so, how long for?

He claims that he rented your property and you seem to agree with him. Was there a formal tenancy agreement? Or was he a lodger and you had a formal agreement for that? Do you still have a copy? Or was he living with you as a romantic partner and simply contributing toward the household costs?

Everyone seems very certain that a partner who lived with you for potentially 14 years and may have contributed to the mortgage all that time has no beneficial interest in the property, but I'm not totally sure why. Perhaps I'm missing something?

audigex

tiger_eyes wrote: »

Just to clarify, did he pay toward the mortgage while he lived with you? If so, how long for?

He claims that he rented your property and you seem to agree with him. Was there a formal tenancy agreement? Or was he a lodger and you had a formal agreement for that? Do you still have a copy? Or was he living with you as a romantic partner and there was never any formal rental agreement?

Everyone seems very certain that a partner who lived with you for potentially 14 years and may have contributed to the mortgage all that time has no beneficial interest in the property, but I'm not totally sure why. Perhaps I'm missing something?

I'm not sure about a formal tenancy agreement, but she has a letter to the creditor at the time stating that he was a tenant and was renting the property. Worth noting that this was 1997, too, and renting was less strictly regulated I believe.

She also states that they didn't buy together because he couldn't afford to because he had his own house... this implies that at most they shared the bills while she paid the mortgage.

duchy

paddy's_mum wrote: »

Might it be worth considering an offer of, say, £5000 as a full and final settlement?

Of course, I realise that it would go against both the grain and your priniciples but sometimes, to avoid hassle, upset and stress, it's worth 'buying' a bit of peace.

Good luck.

Really ?

Why ?

From what the OP says he has no case -to even suggest that this kind of blackmail should even be considered is crazy IMO.

If the OP did it they'd probably hate themselves after- and it might encourage him to try it on further if he thinks she would even consider paying him five grand to go away- he could come back and demand ten- and would then have paperwork from the OP offering to pay him off which could imply she felt he DID have a claim. Really bad idea all around I think

charlie3090

Dont give in,
I had something very similar happen to me,
beware of him trying to put his name on the property title too.
In my case I could prove that I owned a house before he came along and although we moved into the new house together everything was paid by me,
it helped that he had never stayed in a job for more than a few moths at a time.
It cost me a couple of thousand in solicitors fees but it was the best money I ever spent,
for him to fight you costs money,in my case he just didnt pay his solicitors in the end,please dont give in to this,dont you think he has had enough of your time and money already?
good luck,
Charlie.

Money_maker

There would be no tenancy agreement as he was a lodger (live-in landlady). He signed a letter to say the OP was his landlady. He made a signed declaration for benefits to say he had no interest in any property.

Sounds like a long enough rope to me.

Pay him nothing but should he be stupid enough to start proceedings, use the information you have to alert all the agencies that he has ripped off over the years.

paddy's_mum

audigex wrote: »

If you're going to lose £5k, lose it defending the case and costing him £5k too, rather than making him £5k better off!

But my point is that it won't be just £5k, will it?

If it were to get to court, it will cost her thousands in legal fees. If she wins, it is still money gone west.

If she loses, she will have spent good hard cash and then still have to hand over another chunk of money to the bloke.

Sometimes it is perhaps better to look at things from a pragmatic viewpoint especially as the OP has already made it clear that she is dreading an ongoing battle.

caprikid1

"Sometimes it is perhaps better to look at things from a pragmatic viewpoint especially as the OP has already made it clear that she is dreading an ongoing battle. "


As soon as the expectation is set that you feel that he is owed, surely he is going to go for half.


Do one surely has to be the only response.


Sounds like the sort of case that as soon as it looks like his case is not 100% he is not going to persue it due to the cost.