The Mr & Mrs Houston Case
By admin | August 24th, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 9 commentsMany will have read yesterday’s posting that referred to the Telegraph article, that feature Mr & Mrs Houston who were due in court to try and get the fees back from Peverel.
It’s come to our attention that Landmark Leashold Advisory Services were supporting the Houstons throughout this case and they’ve given us a bit more info!
Apparently, there was a catalogue of errors on behalf of the court and the other side who turned up with a monstrous legal team, who had little difficulty in tying Mr Houston up in knots with probing questions, that would confuse anyone!
It is possible that the legal team that turned up, were the original legal team that appeared It would appeared for the original LVC case? (LVT report http://www.rpts.gov.uk/Files/2009/December/D_50002QZ6.pdf)
Once again it was a case of David versus Goliath and unfortunately in this case – Goliath won.
However, in the words of James from Landmark – “We must break a few eggs before we can make an omelette” and in this case, we’d like to think that although they won this time, much has been taken from this experience to make the next case a whole lot harder for Peverel to defend!
This could explain why the Telegraph report was withdrawn from their website, because they had heard the outcome of the court case? We don’t know, but at least it has helped to attract further media coverage of Peverel and once again today we have been contacted by further news agencies – so this matter is certainly not going to go away!
Firstly, can I point out that the link to the LVT case does not work ( a “)” at the end is prevernting it?)and I highly recommend a reading of it by all visitors to this site.
Apart from the LVT papers I do not have the full facts, but why did this case go to court?
I admire the perseverence of this couple: 2 LVT hearings AND a day in Court. However, I do not think that thay have been well-served by either the law or the professionals. I also find the “breaking eggs” metaphor unfortunate; at 77 and 81, I imagine that these 2 citizens have far fewer years in which to make omelettes than the vast majority of visitors to this site; they are not “guinea pigs”, but desire to live out their years in peace and dignity.
Back to the LVT decisions and reasons:
“The LVT is meant to be a cheap, quick and informal tribunal and tenants should not be deterred from pursuing their rights by the fear that they would have to pay the costs.”
This quote is from a very interesting article I came across in ‘Property News’ dated 24 June 2005, written by Jonathan Ross, head of property litigation at Forsters. (This is a limited access site, hence I am not putting up the link). This case report refers to the landmark case of ‘Schilling v Canary Riverside Developments (3 May 2005 LVT)in which the tenants successfully disputed the landlord’s calim to recover legal fees of £182,000 under the service charge provisions of the lease. The case and the LVT’s decision all hinges around the precise wording of the lease and it also referred to the ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations’ 1999. I quote again form the article ” These regulations are increasingly being appplied to leases and estate agents’ terms. They provide that a standard term will be regarded as unfair if it causes a significant imbalance , the LVT held that no tenant would be bound by it.”
Picking up this general point of ‘balance’ – where was the legal balance in the case of Mr and Mrs Houston?
As has already been pointed out by a comment in the earlier post on this case – The Respondent had a barrister, a solicitor, a head accountant, and a company secretary of the freeholder to represent them; the freeholding company, the management company and Girlings -the company that provided the LVT panel with the ‘opinion’on the rental of the house manager’s flat – are all “PEVEREL” (According to the website – the CEO of Girlings is a former Housing Manager for ‘Help the Aged’, director of McCarthy and Stone Care Services and Peverel).
I am perplexed as to how Fiarhold, the freeholder, could represent the management company (Peverel) responsible for the service charges when CBG are constantly claiming that their companies are all separate entities?
This is not so much a David and Goliath case as a major offensive with WMDs on all fronts against an applicant of whom the LVT found partially in favour!!!
There were only 2 on the LVT panel – normally I believe there are 3 (which is a logical number in terms of decision-making).
I find this case very worrying and very depressing. I would be very interested to hear other contibutors views on the detail of the case
I would urge anyone wishing to pursue a legal case to use the Small Claims Courts wherever possible. In most circumstances, they hear claims up to £5,000, and are relatively inexpensive. They are designed for the ‘small person’ taking their own cases, without legal representation. Perhaps the best thing, though, is that – even if you lose your case – the other side can’t claim their legal costs from you. Neither can you claim legal costs from them if you win, but if you’re presenting your own case, that’s not an issue. I don’t think judges presiding over these cases like firms who wheel in the legal heavy mob, so if you are presenting your own case, you will most likely find the Court staff very supportive. Hope this helps.
Archangel – interesting quote from “Jonathan Ross – Forsters” -”Schilling v Canary Riverside Developments” legal fees of £182k!!
I’ve thought for a long time now that LVTs aren’t serving the purpose they were originally designed for. The Governments response to the petition asking for help for leaseholders only to be told by the Government that the “current legislative framework can deliver that balance” when this is clearly NOT the case is a joke (not a funny one tho’)! In most LVTs involving Peverel and Co. that I’ve read they clearly CHOOSE of their own free will to use “Legal WMDs” (I like that term!) and then expect the Leaseholder to pay for it! What chance has a layperson got against this? 
Sue, I was under the impression that the Courts, in cases involving leasehold disputes, would automatically refer the case to an LVT for judgement. If then the subsequent verdict of not abided by (from either side) then it could may well go to the usual Courts? If you’ve had experience with leasehold dispute in the small claims court then please share your experiences?
Spking of LVTs, claims and verdicts! If anyone from City Heights is reading this then ANY update on your case? Have Solitaire paid ANYTHING yet?
Nirmal,
The ‘Sage of Omaha’ (Warren Buffet) warned that DERIVATIVES were “financial weapons of mass destruction” back in 2002. I guess we’re seeing some of the results of this?
I agree with your comments on LVTs – so we’d better keep highlighting this fact.
Likewise the so-called “leases” that we have all (to our cost) signed up to, are not worth the paper they are written on. The more I look through mine, the more I can see that it is essentially a document that was drafted to benefit and protect “The Manager” in every possible situation (usually for a period of 5 years – time enough to finanacially exploit the leaseholders. The ‘developers’/freeholding landlords and third parties to the leases were acted as servile flunkies, secure in the knowledge that they would be selling on their freeholds the moment that the last leasehold property on the developments was sold.
Most of mine is illogical gobbledegook; and the moment that you add RTM to it, then it completely falls apart.
The “professionals” responsible for the creation of these so-called “leases” should have to stand before a court of law for allowing such nonsense to be masqueraded as legal documents.
Time for another cuppa
Archangel – I recently spk to a Surveyor who told me that he’s heard no end of problems when pple mentioned the name ‘Solitaire’! (no surprise there!) But then he said to me something along the lines of ‘…the original Solitaire team were a bunch of lawyers, with no property experience, who’s only aim was to draft their leases to their own benefit…”
As you said, we all to our cost, are now having to deal with these exploitative contracts
Nirmal,
…And do you know who this “bunch of lawyers with no property experience” were / are?
Wonder what they have been doing since they sold Solitaire Ltd (which I believe had a healthy share price at the time) off to CBG?
Looking for / getting lucrative business in the Right To Manage and Enfranchisment field perhaps?
Your guess is as good as mine – subject to some diligent web searching?!
What on earth were Mr & Mrs Houston thinking of, going into a LVT without legal representation?
Did no one advise them of the absolute necessity to have legal representation?
LVT’s are loaded against the applicant and very user unfriendly.
Just have a look a few sample like LVT cases and what do you see?
You will be up against a legal team for the landlord whose names appear time and time again – dedicated professional full time lawyers who do the job for a living.
Never do a DIY LVT it is very serious stuff.
Response to All – and Nirmal especially:
No, unfortunately I have no experience of leasehold disputes in Small Claims Courts. However, it seems to me that, as the LVT had already awarded the Houstons the money, this would have become a debt when it was not paid. Therefore, as I believe the amount was £5,000, they could have used the SCC for redress. If the debtor had continued to refuse to pay after a judgement had been made against them, then the Court could be used for subsequent enforcement proceedings.
I have had some success in this regard with a big company, which paid up at the last minute rather than have either bad publicity, or a judgement against them. Yes, they tried bullying tactics, but I just stuck it out.
Dear all,
Thank you for your comments in relation to this case.
Landmark became involved in the Houston’s case very late in the day, some 12 months after the final LVT determination and initial advice to our clients advised caution in pursuing the money through the courts. However our debt enforcement agents backed up by nothing less than full legal representation and the guidance of a separate County Court Judge identified that this debt could be processed by administrative rather than judicial application. Indeed this guidance stands and there is a wealth of professionals who are very unhappy with the outcome of this case.
Of course the final authorisation to proceed with this method of recovery came from the Houston’s directly and whilst I along with many others am unhappy with the outcome, I can only commend the doggedness with which the Houston’s have always approached their rights. Yes the outcome was not desired but there will be such outcomes when going up against a system which frankly has no intention of changing. I am confident that the Houston’s will not like the intimation that they were “guinea pigs” and would prefer to be thought of as principled people willing to take a risk in pursuing justice.
Of course as professionals we aim to win every time however there is always a risk that the balance is incorrect and the outcome undesirable. We currently have over £300,000.00 of legal liabilities running against our No Win No Fee products and the numbers go up every day. Our priority is to provide the best professional representation in a cost effective manner to the Leaseholders of England and Wales. We do so at considerable risk and clearly it is not in our interest to proceed with anything wreckless.
I believe that the problem here is not with the process (otherwise we would not have achieved the court order) but with the continuity of the judicial systems in place.
I can only echo the sentiments of Mr Baldwin and others. Do not go it alone and get ready for a fight.
Kind regards,
James Butler Esq – Director