Challenging ground rent arrears

Jshome87

I would welcome some views on a situation I have regarding ground rent.

I formerly lived in a leasehold property. It was a 3 party lease. The landlord/freeholder, the management company and I. The ground rent had been collected by the management company on behalf of the landlord/freeholder.

I moved in Jan 2015. I kept the flat, and sublet it (with relevant permission). The landlord/freeholder changed about the same time, and the new landlord/freeholder started collecting ground rent directly, not via the management company who remained a party to the lease. In error, though I told the managing agent my new address I didn't tell the new landlord/freeholder.

I got some post from the landlord during the 2015 year, all through post forwarding (which was by surname, as well as address, and had to be registered to my partner and I separately as we don't share names). That ended October 2015.

Jump forward to last week. I do a credit check, and find a CCJ from March 16 2016. I get details, call the court and it's for Ground rent. It was, I accept, it was due on 1.Jan 2016, but I hadn't got any post (importantly - no section 166 notice, no chasers, no court correspondence). I'd never received any documentation about it, I just found out by chance.

I was basically prepared to pay, as it was my error for not telling the landlord/freeholder my new address. I simply asked for the claim form, judgment and proof of the various demands sent because I had not seen them. My tenants (i.e. the sub-letters) said they hadn't received anything at the address, so I couldn't get it from them.

A week later, I got the proof from the solicitors of the freeholder/landlord. The address of all the demands for the ground rent, and then admin charges, has the wrong post code. I checked that post code: it leads to a different road, with only industrial properties on, and relates now a now demolished building. I went back, and all the documents I got in 2015 had the wrong postcode. I probably only got them because I had post forwarding, which is by surname as well as address. I had never noticed.

I've since gone back to the claimant's solicitors. My position is that the landlord/freeholder have to serve me the section 166 notice, in the prescribed form. As that may be by post, then the question is effective service. Reading s7 Interpretation Act 1978 regarding 'send', and similar, it requires it to be 'properly' addressed. Plainly, this wasn't. That means the presumption of effective service doesn't apply to my mind. Even if it did, the fact my tenants (the sub-letters) say they didn't get it must support the position that it didn't arrive.

If the sub-letters had got it, I'd be happy to concede that it's simply my fault for not notifying the freeholder/landlord when I moved. But as they never got it, and I never got it, I think no sum is due because the statutory requirement under 166 isn't met.

I've offered to pay the ground rent immediately, but said nothing else can be due.

If I'd got the letter I'd have paid - I just didn't realise when January rolled around, as for the last 5 years it had been part of my management company costs, so I simply didn't think. My fault, yes, but I never got any correspondence that would have triggered me sending it.

Does that seem like I'm on the right track disputing the sum?

Jshome87

I should add, the rent was 125 quid. The cost now is 1000, following judgment by default (I hadn't responded to the claim form, because I'd never got it).

eddddy

So it sounds like you want the ccj set aside because the claim was sent to the wrong address.

Here's some info: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/help-with-debt/changing-a-court-order-for-debt/#h-getting-a-court-order-set-aside

The judge will decide what’s a good reason for missing a hearing...

...you may have not received the claim forms because they were either sent to the wrong address or lost in the post.

DTDfanBoy

I'm struggling to make sense of your post.

Ground rent is normally the responsibility of the leaseholder ie your landlord who pays it to the freeholder.

If the ground rent wasn't paid the freeholder would be seeking payment from your LL not yourself.

Who obtained the judgement, I can't see a freeholder being able to take any action against you, and the tenancy seems to still be ongoing which suggest that your LL hasn't taken any action against you either, are you sure about the terms you are using??

davidmcn

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

Ground rent is normally the responsibility of the leaseholder ie your landlord who pays it to the freeholder.

Leasehold property involves a lease. Every lease has a landlord and a tenant. The leaseholder is the tenant, the freeholder is the landlord. Make more sense now?

(it does of course get more confusing where, as in this case, the leaseholder sublets the property and therefore becomes a landlord to the subtenant, but I don't think that's relevant here apart from the OP not living at the address)

Jshome87

Davidmcn has it right.

To be clear - there was the freeholder/landlord, and we were the leaseholder/tenant. We however sublet the property, so technically we were both a leaseholder, and a landlord to our sublet tenants. That is only relevant as they confirmed they did not receive the s166 notice, or chasing correspondence.

davidmcn

Jshome87 wrote: »

The address of all the demands from the landlord has the wrong post code. I checked that post code: it leads to a different Road, with only industrial properties on, and relates now a now demolished building. I went back, and all the documents I got in 2015 had the wrong postcode. I probably only got them because I had post forwarding, which is by surname as well as address. I had never noticed.

I've since gone back to the claimant's solicitors. My position is that they have to serve me the 166 notice, in the prescribed form, and that may be by post. reading s7 Interpretation Act 1978 regarding send, and similar, it requires it to be properly addressed. Plainly, this wasn't.

Not sure it's all that plain - it may be sloppy, but do you have authority for a glitch in the postcode (and the remainder of the address being correct) being not "properly addressed"? My experience is that such items will be delivered to the intended address. The fact that there isn't a property at the incorrect postcode doesn't help you either - it's hardly going to be plausible that the postie would just have chucked it onto the site of the demolished building, rather than deliver it to your property. Possibly depends what mood the judge is in.

From a quick search, people clutching at similar straws have admitted that they received the items with the wrong postcode.

Jshome87

I can't find a specific authority to cite dealing with the postcode issue per se. All I can say is Royal Mail don't guarantee delivery if there is an error.

If the sub-letters had said "yes we got the post, sorry we never notified you" I would have been fine with that, chalked it up to experience, and just had to take the hit (painful though it is). Alternatively, had the letters been addressed correctly but I (or the subletters) didn't get them, I'd be in the same position. Presumption of service is a !!!!!.

It's the fact that there's an error and the subletters say they didn't get them. Sure, they could be covering their !!!, I suppose - but they are willing to reduce to writing for me to submit to the Court, and I made clear through our lettings agent I don't care if they got it and didn't say, just tell us that and then I know it was served.

DTDfanBoy

I think I'm with you now, after reading the first post I thought that the OP had an AST but had moved out and sublet the property, when in actual fact they own the flat in question.

If court papers were served to an incorrect address you should be able to have the judgement set aside