Mediation
Peterborough
- Save thousands of pounds.
- No Court or Employment Tribunal.
- No more stress, worry & sleepless nights.
- We can mediate for you within 14 days of contact.
- Our Peterborough mediators cover all of Peterborough.
- End your Peterborough dispute of any nature in 1 day.
- Mediate from anywhere in Peterborough or via Zoom.
- 100% Confidential & No Obligation
Peterborough Mediation
Mediation Peterborough is an area that we serve. Home to a host of attractions, such as Burghley House, Elton Hall and Gardens, Longthorpe Tower, Nene Park and Peterborough Cathedral. It is also home to several law firms, businesses and charities that we have had the honor of mediating for. We have dedicated Peterborough mediators who live, work in and cover the whole of Peterborough.
Peterborough Locals
Being local our Peterborough mediators can be with you within days. Equally they provide online mediation via Zoom & telephone mediation services. They have been providing Peterborough mediation services for several years in a cost effective and confidential manner.
Peterborough Mediators
As well as its surrounding areas, our mediators will travel to you. Although we cover the whole of Peterborough. The bulk of our mediations have been in the City Centre, Thorney, Old Fletton, Werrington, Parnwell, Dogsthorpe, Eye Green, Glinton, Northborough, Maxey, Wittering, Wansford and Ailsworth.
Peterborough Dispute Types
Covering every type of civil, commercial, workplace, employment, family & boundary dispute, with a very high success rate. Save money on expensive legal, expert and court fees. Save time, stop wasting it on court and tribunal actions! Resolve your dispute within 4-8 hours.
MEDIATION PETERBOROUGH VIDEO
CLICK ON THE MEDIATORS
NAME TO VIEW THEIR WHOLE CV
Director, International Commercial & Workplace Mediator & Trainer
Director of Trust Mediation, Commercial Mediator
Arbitrator, Expert Witness & Commercial Mediator
Our Mediation Peterborough Services Have Helped
This was a workplace dispute between two employees. With allegations of previous poor management skills by the previous manager which had a long-lasting effect infecting the majority of the team. Becoming toxic, and misguided leadership. Rather than being an office environment with a clear structure, it became a friend environment.
A new manager was put in place to make the company more efficient and effective, thus to turn the company around. The team were very loyal to the previous manager who now had been demoted. There was constant undermining leading to a number of issues. When she left the longest standing employee and the new manager had a number of issues. Partly due to her allegiance to the previous manager.
The mediation took six hours and the dispute was resolved.
The claimant (C) wished to take possession of their property against the defendant (D). Under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 a notice was served upon the D. It was the C’s position that the D had been in occupation of the premises since 2008, and not 2010 as intimated by the D.
The C purchased the property in October 2008 and the D moved into the property shortly thereafter. It was alleged the parties were family, however the C asserted the D came from the same village in Pakistan but there was no family connection.
The C denied that the D had any interest in the property other than as a tenant. Who enjoyed sole use of the property since the tenancy was granted. This of course was an assured shorthold -tenancy agreement.
The C denied that they had taken advantage of the D, as alleged by him, as English was not his first language, having a limited understanding of the same. It was alleged that the D in fact had reneged on his obligations as a tenant.
The rental payments were £550 per month. The D made the first two payments directly to the C. Who in 2009 went to Pakistan for a short period of time. It was at this stage that in order to ensure that payments of the mortgage were made and rather than having cash payment of the rent, it was agreed that the D would make payment directly of the mortgage to the bank.
The C calculated that the total payments due to them since January 2009 to January 2014 amounted to £33,500. The D had made payment of £10,298.53 directly to the mortgage company. The shortfall amounted to £23,251.47 which C wished to pursue.
It was argued that the C was able to establish that there was a mandatory ground for possession, inviting the D to give up possession. The mediation took place in person and lasted five hours. It was conducted in a mixture of English and Punjabi.
The Claimant (C) gave the Defendant (D) a friend of twenty years a cash payment of £10,000. This was paid in the presence of several witnesses. This was for a deposit for a property on the agreement of all parties that the property would be transferred to the C a few days afterwards.
Further, from this date onwards, the C expended the sum of £12,000.00 on refurbishing the property as the property was in a very poor condition upon purchase.
The C had evidence to prove that this sum was spent on the property. Since paying the D £10,000.00, the C had also paid the monthly mortgage payment of £325.67 from his / his wife’s bank account directly to the lender. With bank statements proving the same.
The C was asking for either the property to be transferred into his name as was originally agreed, or the sum of £41,540.20 for all the money he had expended thus far. As well as another £20,000 for unjust enrichment, and the increased value of the property.
The mediation took eleven hours, was in person and a settlement was found.
