Landlord &
Tenant Mediation

landlord & tenant dispute.

landlord & tenant dispute.

A landlord and tenant dispute over severe disrepairs and rent arrears. The claim value was just under £20,000. There were eleven major disrepairs caused by the tenant, who argued the house was like that on arrival.

The claimant argued this was highly unrealistic, as he had the inventory report, which was satisfactory and signed by the tenant. Equally the house would have been unhabitable due to the extensive disrepairs.

The mediation was face to face, and settled in just under three hours.

A pharmacist husband and wife instigated proceedings against a Dr’s surgery. They alleged allegations of racism, defamation, restriction of access and use of consulting rooms. The previous lease which was up for renewal was negotiated with a former partner at the surgery, that Dr had since retired.

The dispute became extremely acrimonious, partly due to the parties working alongside / next to one another. The Dr’s advised no such racism, or defamation had occurred. And due to Covid they had to be more careful in allowing access and so forth. Equally there had been a number of complaints against the pharmacists. The mediation took place in person, lasted ten hours and settled.

The Defendant (D) was being sued for some £50,000 over the supply of metal. This was based on an oral contract. D claimed that no money was owing as it had been previously paid for in a mixture of cash and BACS transfers.

The Claimant (C) would drop off the metal as required at D’s premises. D contended that C walked in on D one day having a meeting with another supplier, who was offering his metal much cheaper than C.

D claimed that once he cleared his account with C, he went to the new supplier and worked with him. C apparently angered by this, issued a fictious set of invoices, presumably angry at the loss of trade, as the two companies had worked together for over two years.

The mediation took place in person, and took three hours.

The Claimant (C) was in occupation of Unit 4 (“the Property”). C ran (and had at all material times ran) a vehicle garage business at the Property providing, inter alia, repair and MOT services to the public. C took up occupation of the Property in or around December 2007, further to a lease (“Lease 1”) granted to him by the then landlord. Who subsequently sold the property to the Defendant (D). The C relied on the terms of Lease 1 for its full terms and effect.

Lease 1 was granted for a term absolute of 10 years. To the best of C’s knowledge, it was not completed by registration against the registered freehold title to the Property. Subsequent to the entry into Lease 1 by the C and the then landlords, C made payments of rent as required. The then landlords had actual, alternatively constructive notice that Lease 1 had not been completed by registration, but nevertheless, and in any event, the payments of rent were accepted as rent.

The C avers that in or around 2010 he stopped paying rent because he had agreed with the then landlords, or either of them, acting on the other’s behalf, to offset £57,000 against rent. That agreement was made orally with the then landlords on the basis that he carried out services including, but not limited to clearing tyres from part or parts of the warehouse within which the Property was situated.

The C claimed that the then landlords, and any successor in title of theirs, was bound by the terms of that agreement which constituted a variation to the terms of Lease 1 as to the payment of rent, alternatively an agreement to credit the C’s expenditure against future payments of rent, alternatively the C stated that the then landlords and any successor in title of theirs was estopped from denying that agreement and thereby claiming rent over and above such sums that were agreed to have been credited against rent.

The C alleged that it was a term of that agreement that the then landlords agreed to extend Lease 1 until 2027, alternatively to grant a new lease upon the expiration of the fixed term of Lease 1. The C alleged that a letter was sent to him as evidence of that agreement but that the letter was erroneous when it stated that a new lease was being granted from ”29th September 2009”, C advised that the oral agreement had been as pleaded above.

The C made the following pleas concerning his understanding of the effect of Lease 1.

Given the then landlords’ (and subsequently the Defendant D) actual or constructive notice of the fact of Lease 1 not being completed by registration, the C was granted by implication based on conduct, including but not limited to the acceptance of quarterly rent, a quarterly periodic tenancy on the terms set out in Lease 1, either during the period of the initial term of 10 years or at some point thereafter, which periodic tenancy took effect at law and was not required to be completed by registration (“the Periodic Tenancy”).

Alternatively, that Lease 1 took effect in equity as an agreement for a lease, alternatively that the D holds a lease in the terms set out in Lease 1 on trust for the C (” the Equitable Lease”).

Further that the provisions of Part 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 providing security of tenure for business premises applied to the Periodic Tenancy, alternatively, the Equitable Lease.

Further, that the Periodic Tenancy or Equitable Lease had not been terminated by notice in accordance with the requirements of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and continue in the alternative on the terms set out in Lease 1.

Purported Forfeiture the C claimed that in or around October 2019, the D, or alternatively by their servants or agents purported to forfeit the Periodic Tenancy or Equitable Lease by changing the locks at the Property and denying the C access to it. Further the D, their servants or agents, removed £4,000 in cash from the C pursuant to such purported forfeiture which was for the reasons set out above not owed.

C stated that such purported forfeiture was unlawful because the terms of the Periodic Tenancy, alternatively the Equitable Lease as varied permitted rent not to be paid for the reasons set out above. The D alternatively was not entitled to demand rent, as £57,000 as set out above had already been credited towards future rent and constituted, in effect, a payment in advance. Alternatively, the landlords at the time of the entry into Lease 1 and their successors in title were estopped by virtue of the agreement pleaded above from claiming rent. In any event, no right or term existed per the terms of Lease 1 and therefore the Periodic Tenancy and Equitable Lease which entitled the D to forfeiture.

The C wished to claim for an injunction against the D and to prevent the C being excluded from the Property as described above. The C claimed for a declaration from the court as to his right to occupy the Property in the terms set out in the alternative pleas 12 above, depending on which facts were found and upon which legal interpretation was favoured by the court at trial.

The C claimed for the return of £4,000 taken from him by the D, their servants or agents, pursuant to the purported but unlawful forfeiture along with interest on that sum pursuant to The County Courts Act 1984, s.69, at the rate of 4% from the date of removal from him of £4,000 until the date of judgment. C also claimed relief from forfeiture in the event that rent was found to be owing and that the purported acts of forfeiture by the D, their servants or agents were found to have been lawful on such terms as are just.

Of course, the D advised all this was incorrect and made a counter claim as follows. By reason of the C’s failure to make payments of rent pursuant to the Lease, D was in breach of the terms of the Lease.

Accordingly, D sought payment of all outstanding rent accrued in the period from the 1 January 2014 to date amounting to £26,000 (with credit being given for the sum of £4,000 received by the D).

Mesne profits for the period 29 October 2019 until possession of the Property was delivered up at the market rental rate or for such other period as the Court considered due. Interest upon the outstanding rental sums pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum on monies outstanding since 25 March 2014 until at the date of issue amounting to £57,260.91 as at 7 January 2020 and accruing thereafter at a daily rate of £6.55 until judgment or sooner payment.

The mediation took place in person, took seven hours and an agreement was reached.

This mediation was via Zoom, and lasted for three hours. The claimant was a tenant of the defendant housing association. 

She was claiming for damages under Section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and the statutory duties imposed by virtue of Section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972.

Damp, mold, defective heating were all present causing the claimant severe stress, inconvenience and embarrassment. 

This dispute concerned a commercial contract. The parties were a landlord and tenant. However a dispute arose over rent arrears and storage costs for £19,600. The mediation was in person and took four hours. 

The Claimant (C) issued proceedings against the Defendant (D), who had rented him commercial space. The lease was for 15 years, and the annual rent was £156,000. For two years everything went smoothly. All was good until the D failed to pay £39,000 in rent for a quarter.

Naturally, C followed up on this, but D did not provide a compelling explanation for his nonpayment. The total then reached £78,000 when another quarter was due. D made a complete payment after C issued a statutory claim.

Even though the conditions of the commercial lease stipulated that the D was responsible for any repairs and insurance. D claimed he had suffered significant losses and was unable to operate his business as he should have because of floods and or construction flaws with the building.

The vicious cycle between the two persisted when another quarter’s rent of £39,000 fell due. After three hours of a face to face mediation, the matter was resolved.

Due to alleged frequent flooding, leaks, the renting claimant filed a claim against his housing association, the defendant. The claim comprised of the unsociable actions of other tenants and visitors. To include criminal damage and racist abuse, leaving him and his daughter on dangerous property.

There had also been claims of ongoing violations of fire regulations and insufficient or non-existent lighting while the defendant was aware of his sight problems. It was claimed that the defendant had discriminated against the claimant because of his disability and had breached a duty of care. The claimant and his daughter were also claiming damages for the stress and distress they had endured. This was a four-hour telephone mediation.  

A landlord and tenant dispute, over a commercial space. The claimant was claiming for possession of his premises, arrears of rent of £13,000, and mesne profits at the rate of £42.74 a day from the date of service of the claim form until possession and Statutory interest. The defendant counter  claimed for loss of profit of £104,400, interest and costs. The mediation took place in person, took seven hours and an agreement was reached at mediation. 

A take way business found it self evicted apparently wrongfully. Therefore, the owner brought proceedings for a loss of business, consequential loss, and unlawful eviction from the premises.

He brought a claim for £50,000, the landlord counter claimed for a similar amount, (£100,000 the global sum). Stating the tenant had in his words “trashed the place” through shoddy building alterations, accumulating in severe disrepairs, and rent significant rent arrears.
This was a five hour mediation in person, which settled.