Help! £500 Bill for cleaning post sale of property

yksi

Quite frankly I'm astounded that the solicitor didn't come to you first, advising you they asked this silly thing and that it's nonsense, and TELLING you how they intend to politely tell the buyer to get stuffed. A solicitor is supposed to understand what they're doing, not get a surprise that they acted without your instruction and you didn't like it. I agree with others that the letter they sent you as a draft looks ridiculously amateur. Is this a large firm? It might well be being handled by a legal secretary / trainee, see if you can go higher to get more appropriate handling of this, especially since you've been dubiously told the buyer might have legal recourse to go after you...:huh:

kinger101

mpet wrote: »

Personally, I would cut the response (if any) down to
The house was left in a condition commensurate with their viewing.I will not be paying anything

After that I would not enter any further dialogue on the subject.

Still too long. The correct response is nothing, but if one must be given, it requires only two words.

Dineen33

Arkell v Pressdram


An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in what is now referred to as the "case" of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971).

The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply."

The magazine's response was, in full: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: "f*ck off."

In the years following, the magazine would refer to this exchange as a euphemism for a blunt and coarse dismissal: for example, "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram".

As with "tired and emotional" this usage has spread beyond the magazine