Awful Housing Association Landlord who're taking me to Court

Hard_food_for_midas

steampowered wrote: »

Now it would probably be sensible to write or email the HA's legal representative, headed 'without prejudice save as to costs', noting that you are now pursuing a counterclaim against the HA for failure to comply with the lease through the county courts.

You'd presumably offer to settle the case, pay the service charge and withdraw your counterclaim if the housing association will undertake to conduct the repairs within an agreed time bound period.

Done. You have been amazing. Thank you so much...thanks to all of you..:beer:

rtho782

There are two completely separate issues here.

1. You have not paid monies you are contractually obliged to. Why is irrelevant, you haven't, you have to, you will lose in court. If you clear the whole lot within 28 day you can get the ccj set aside, but you will lose and it's pointless taking it to court as it won't fix your other issues.

2. They have not fulfilled their end of the contract, ombudsmen are powerless and pointless, and perhaps you should take the HA to court for breach of contract.

Rain_Shadow

Don't forget there is a fee for issuing a counterclaim which has to be paid at the time of issuing the counterclaim.

Guest101

Hard_food_for_midas wrote: »

I know...look, this is what I wrote - replied to the court claim form using www.moneyclaim.gov.uk.

this is what I said in the 'Defence' section:

'The service charge demand issued to me was non compliant as it!
failed to be accompanied by a summary of the rights and!
obligations of tenants of dwellings in relation to service!
charges.

All that was sent to me on the 2/2/17 was a covering letter;!
Reference Only Claim Form; Statement of Account and Ways to pay.

If the Claimant wishes to proceed with this action, they should do!
so correctly.

And, if they wish to proceed, I wish to make a counter-claim to!
seek monetary damages for breach of the lease (Section 5.3.1)!
relating to the roof and (5.3.3) general maintenance and upkeep.!
Also, (5.4) regarding lighting.

The Claimant has offered £100 in monetary damages (an offer which!
I find unacceptable, given that my complaint is over 15 months old!
and has taken up a lot of my time managing and sorting.) There is!
no reflection of this 'discount' from my service charge bill as!
set out in this claim.

The Claimant has tried to close down my complaint, but since!
receiving this Court Order, I have written to the CEO of the!
Claimant explaining their breach of the Lease and that there is!
still no satisfactory response to my complaint.

I am prepared to pay the service charge once we can agree on the!
final amount, which I hope fairly reflects the time, effort and!
money I have put into the servicing of this building and the!
claimant fulfilling their obligations as set out in the Lease.'

This isn't going to end well.


The response need to be a skeleton argument. The minimum should be "I propose we use mediation to resolve this"

steampowered

rtho782 wrote: »

2. They have not fulfilled their end of the contract, ombudsmen are powerless and pointless, and perhaps you should take the HA to court for breach of contract.

You seem to be suggesting that the Op initiates a separate set of court proceedings, so that there are two separate court cases about the same property running in parallel.

That would be pointless, and there is a good chance the two cases would end up being consolidated anyway. The easiest way for the Op to force the issue is by making a counterclaim to be dealt with at the same hearing as the HA's service charge claim.

Guest101 wrote: »

This isn't going to end well.

The response need to be a skeleton argument. The minimum should be "I propose we use mediation to resolve this"

No, you shouldn't refer to mediation in the defence. The purpose of a defence is simply to state the basis on which the claim is defended.

References to settlement discussions are inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings, until you get to costs after the case has been decided, and should be kept in separate 'without prejudice' correspondence.

You get asked whether you want to use the mediation service in the directions questionnaire, which is received from the court after a defence has been filed.

Guest101

steampowered wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting that the Op initiates a separate set of court proceedings, so that there are two separate court cases about the same property running in parallel.

That would be pointless, and there is a good chance the two cases would end up being consolidated anyway. The easiest way for the Op to force the issue is by making a counterclaim to be dealt with at the same hearing as the HA's service charge claim.


No, you shouldn't refer to mediation in the defence. The purpose of a defence is simply to state the basis on which the claim is defended.

References to settlement discussions are inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings, until you get to costs after the case has been decided, and should be kept in separate 'without prejudice' correspondence.

You get asked whether you want to use the mediation service in the directions questionnaire, which is received from the court after a defence has been filed.

This isn't the bundle or the witness statement. It's a skeleton 'case' I agree you need to set out the basis of the claim, but suggesting mediation is always a good idea.

steampowered

Guest101 wrote: »

This isn't the bundle or the witness statement. It's a skeleton 'case' I agree you need to set out the basis of the claim, but suggesting mediation is always a good idea.

The defence is part of the bundle. It conventionally goes right at the front of the bundle, just behind the particulars of claim.

Hard_food_for_midas

rtho782 wrote: »

There are two completely separate issues here.

1. You have not paid monies you are contractually obliged to. Why is irrelevant, you haven't, you have to, you will lose in court. If you clear the whole lot within 28 day you can get the ccj set aside, but you will lose and it's pointless taking it to court as it won't fix your other issues.

Just to be clear: I know I owe the money and I will pay it. It was the only leverage (albeit a desperate one perhaps) to even get them to understand and do something about the urgent repairs. So, when it comes to it, I will pay.

If I had paid, the HA may have acted reasonably about the breach of lease, but 15 years of experience tells me, they are pretty incompetent.

However, there are 30 flats here and organising them and getting them to agree/act in unison to get a new management team seems like a nightmare to arrange.

So, I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place really..

2. They have not fulfilled their end of the contract, ombudsmen are powerless and pointless, and perhaps you should take the HA to court for breach of contract.

I'm waiting to hear back from the Ombudsman. I am not entirely convinced of their effectiveness either - but the officer dealing with this case did say to me that none of the deadlines he has set for the HA to meet have ever been met.

I did not want to wait for their instructions. I wanted to reply to the court order right away.

Hard_food_for_midas

Rain_Shadow wrote: »

Don't forget there is a fee for issuing a counterclaim which has to be paid at the time of issuing the counterclaim.

Sorry if I've not made it clear. I have defended their claim and in that I mentioned I may wish to make a counterclaim IF they proceed. I have not formally made a counterclaim, as I wish to avoid any further costs at this stage.

I want to see how they respond.

Guest101

steampowered wrote: »

The defence is part of the bundle. It conventionally goes right at the front of the bundle, just behind the particulars of claim.

Indeed but there are 14 days to provide the details.


Offering mediation from the get go will at least counter any claim from the claimant that the respondent was being 'unreasonable'


Look we are mostly in agreement, im not sure why you wouldn't put in an offer of mediation, I would - so I wont get into an argument about it.


But certainly what was written was not a skeleton case.