Mediation
Coventry

An in person commercial landlord and tenant dispute. A warehouse was leased, but was not being used in accordance to the terms of the lease. It was alleged £25,000 was owed to include rent arrears and storage costs. 

The Claimant (C) issued proceedings against the Defendant (D). The allegation being they owed his father a duty of care which was breached through their alleged negligence. Resulting in the father passing away whilst in their care. A very sensitive and difficult dispute, the mediation  took less than five hours and settled. 

This was a landlord and tenant dispute. A new member of staff had encountered several issues with a tenant on site. Inheriting their predecessors’ complaints. Allegations of race, abiding by the rules, and general behaviour to staff were in play.

A workplace dispute between three senior employees. A senior manager was having difficulties managing two senior members of staff. Allegations of undermining, miscommunication, competence, and lack of training on systems were all in play. The mediation took one day, and led to an agreement.

The Claimant was the Landlord of the Premises known as R Buildings in Coventry which were leased to the First Defendant for 15 years from the 25th December 2005.  The Second Defendant acted as Guarantor.  The rent was £130,000.00 plus VAT per annum payable quarterly in advance and in default interest was payable at 4% above Barclays Bank base rate.

The First Defendant failed to pay the quarters rent which had become due on the 25th December 2007 and the Claimants Solicitors wrote to the First Defendant as regards the arrears in January 2008.  Thereafter there was substantial correspondence between the Tenant, the Guarantor and his Solicitors in which the Second Defendant disputed (without justification) that he was not liable to pay the rent. 

Claiming that the Landlord had agreed a rent concession or claiming that due to flooding at the premises the premises could not be fully operated.  He blamed the Landlord for the flooding despite the fact that the Lease was a full repairing and insuring Lease requiring the Tenant to maintain the premises in good repair.

The correspondence continued from January 2008 until June 2008 when another quarters rent fell due in the sum of £38,187.50.  This together with rent which was already outstanding amounted to £67,000.00.  In the absence of any offers to pay from the Defendants, a Statutory Demand was issued on the 17th July 2008 and served on the Second Defendant.  In response the First Defendant paid £38,187.50 on the 23rd July 2008 claiming the balance of the sum claimed was disputed and although the Claimant was entitled to claim the balance, agreed to withdraw the Statutory Demand after receiving payment of £38,187.50.

The correspondence continued from July through to December with the Defendants denying liability for any further monies and so on 18th December 2008 a further Statutory Demand was issued against the Second Defendant claiming £30,335.31 which represented the balance of the rent arrears (£38,916.68) taking account of £12,524.89 received from the First Defendant on the 3rd December 2008 together with interest of nearly £4,000.00.  

The Demand did not claim any legal costs.  On the 23rd December 2008 the First Defendant paid the sum of £30,335.31 but would not have done so without the Claimant issuing the Statutory Demand.

It was noted that the Defendants tried to claim that some of the correspondence between the parties solicitors related possible assignment or surrender of the Lease.  This was correct but the majority of the correspondence and the time involved concerned the rent arrears and other breaches of the Tenants covenants.  The lease terms provided that the Tenant and Guarantor were responsible for reimbursing the Landlords costs where there were breaches of covenant and where the Tenant made application to assign the Lease.

A Statutory Demand was issued on the 2nd March 2009 in which demand for payment of the Landlords legal costs was made in the sum of £7,772.63.  In the event the demand was withdrawn as it was clear that the Defendants would seek to dispute the Demand even though it could be denied that the Landlord had incurred costs which he was entitled to recover.

In the event the Claimant issued proceedings for the costs claimed and the Defendants served a Defence and Counterclaim.  The Counterclaim alleged that the First Defendant was entitled to damages for loss of business due to the flooding.  The Claimant refuted this claim as it was the Tenants responsibility to maintain the premises. 

The First Defendant claimed that it was entitled to claim damages from the Claimant as the Claimant was obliged to insure the building.  This was correct but the Landlord was not required to insure the Tenants business nor his fixtures and fittings.  Furthermore, the Defendants claimed that the last payment made to the Claimant of £30,335.31 in December 2008 represented an ‘overpayment’ because they claimed the Landlord had previously agreed to accept the payment in July 2008 in full satisfaction of all outstanding sums which was not accepted by the Claimant.

By letter of the 10th June 2009 the Defendants Solicitors made a without prejudice offer to settle on the basis that both parties discontinued their claims against the other.  They also offered to engage in mediation as an alternative means of bringing this matter to a conclusion.

The Claimants position was that he had incurred significant costs by reason of the Defendants default under the terms of the Lease and was entitled to recover those costs from the Tenant and or Guarantor.  The Defendants had been totally unreasonable throughout the period since this dispute began only making payment of monies due when lengthy correspondence has been exchanged and when this has failed to achieve payment of the Statutory Demands issued.

The Defendants counterclaims were not accepted by the Claimant, it was not accepted that the claim for costs said to be incurred in responding to the Statutory Demand in March 2009 (which was withdrawn) were reasonably or properly incurred.  The amount claimed was out of proportion to the work involved as evidenced by the correspondence and in any event the withdrawal of the Demand did not signify an acknowledgement that the debt was not due to the Claimant. 

The fact that the Defendants were willing to discontinue their very substantial counterclaim confirms that this was a spurious counterclaim from the start.  The Claimant has always maintained that the counterclaim is without merit.  The Claimant expects to receive the sum claimed in the Claim Form being £7,791.71 and also the costs incurred in instituting the claim. The mediation was in person, took three hours and settled. 

This mediation concerned a landlord and tenant dispute. The let premises were a commercial property. The landlord issued a section 146 notice, for an alleged breach of a number of covenants. The tenant applied for a declaration that she was not in breach of the covenants and in the alternative, relief from forfeiture.

A section 146 Notice under the Law of Property Act 1925 was served on the 2″ October 2012. Due to continuing and further breaches and matters that came to light since the service of that Notice and in respect of the Lease dated 22″ March 2004.

The Lease contained the following covenants by the tenant, all of which had alleged to be breached.

• To maintain the access road to the premises in good and substantial repair. 
• Not to commit any breach of planning control.
• Not to use the demised premises other than for the use as a Craft Workshop Retail Centre and light industrial / office use and restaurant use only and not to suffer or permit the same to be used for any other purpose.
• The tenant shall give to the lessor immediately on receipt of the same a copy of any Notice concerning the demised premises received by the tenant.
• Not to use the demised premises in such a way as in the opinion of the lessor causes or may cause nuisance and annoyance to the lessor.
• Not to underlet part with or share possession or occupation of the demised premises or any part thereof provided that the tenant may underlet the whole or part of the demised premises with the written consent of the lessor but provided further that the lessor may withhold his licence for the tenant to underlet unless before the underlease is executed the tenant procures the execution of and delivers to the lessor a deed to be prepared by the lessor’s solicitors at the cost of the tenant containing a covenant by the unintended Sub-Tenant to perform and observe during the term granted to him the covenants by the tenant and conditions contained in the lease in the same manner as if such covenants and conditions were repeated in that deed.
• To pay the lessors solicitors fees relating to any application by the tenant under this lease (whether such licence is granted or not).

The mediation was in person, lasted four hours and settled.