Mediation
London

This was a family dispute between a Sikh Punjabi father the Claimant (C) and the Defendant (D) who was his daughter. The C asked D to look after half a million pounds for him. As he was afraid of other family members intentions towards him and his money.

Due to other wider family issues the C asked D if he could move in with her, she agreed. The C being 93 with a number of health issues meant the D had to play taxi service to a number of medical appointments. Wake up at 3 am and take him to the Sikh Gurdwara (Temple) for prayers, as well as do all his laundry, cooking and cleaning.

At this point C out of gratitude told D, to clear off her mortgage and two credit cards. Which she did. C then insisted on becoming involved in a business venture that D’s husband had. Who reluctantly agreed, making it abundantly clear it was a risky, and there was no promise of any returns. C would not listen, and even said spend out of my money whatever you need to, to make the business venture prosper.

The business venture failed, at this point C claimed nearly half of his money was missing, and he wanted return of the same. A quarter of a million pounds. D and her husband furiously responded you told us to spend the money, the C claimed he did not, and then started legal proceedings.

The mediation took place in person, lasted nearly one day, and settled.

The claimants (C) were husband and wife. Their next-door neighbour the defendant (D) was the sister of the first C. In breach of the D’s obligations arising from the Party Wall Act 1996 and without obtaining consent from, or consulting the C’s, the D commenced the construction of a rear-single storey extension.

In doing so she encroached on the land of the C’s. The amount of disturbance and inconvenience caused to the C’s was immense. The encroachment consisted of wrongfully building a wall from foundation level on land properly belonging to the C’s.

The works also involved the construction that adjoined the boundary fence and extended beyond the fence, encroaching on land belonging to the C. Fence and garden tiles, were also damaged. Trespass and a lot of mess being created were also issues in the mix.

£20,000 was being claimed. The mediation took place in person, took eight hours, and was settled at mediation. Read the testimonial here.

This concerned a landlord tenant dispute, a claim for £90,000 was made. The Claimant (C), was the former tenant of the property of the Defendant (D).  

The C entered into an Assured Shorthold Tenancy paying a deposit of £10,038.42 and the monthly rent in advance for a 12-month period in the amount of £82,000.00.

Upon entering the tenancy, the C discovered numerous disrepair issues due to substantial maintenance neglect, specifically relating to pest control, a faulty electrical system, a shower/ceiling leak (so severe that it caused a short circuit), together with a plethora of other issues including but not limited to sanitary appliances and heating.

An inaccurate inventory was also completed in the C’s absence one month before she had possession of the property. Additionally, there were aesthetic and structural repairs that had been neglected. Many of these defects were either resolved late or not at all during the tenancy.

Due to the pressure of outstanding issues in the property, the C requested an early surrender of the tenancy which the Landlord accepted. By that date the C vacated the Property and returned the keys to the Landlord. The C was reimbursed one month’s rent for the period and the deposit of £10,033.42 was returned to the C in full.

The C asserted that the property was misrepresented to her and was in a substandard condition, unsuitable for letting. The C was also assured by the agents on that the Property had no issues with mobile phone service or satellite TV reception and would be professionally cleaned, which were important factors for the C and her family, leading them to rely on these assurances.

Upon taking possession of the property, the Claimant noticed it had not been professionally cleaned nor had required repairs been completed, evidenced by a list of issues, gravel on the floor and an unflushed toilet.  

Subsequently the agents admitted in open correspondence that multiple items in the property needed repair from the start of the tenancy. The C asserts that she gave oral and informal notice of the disrepair identified on multiple occasions, both before and after written notice, through various telephone conversations and messages with the agents.

The disrepair listed was not attributed to misuse or neglect by the C or her family. For example, the vermin infestation was due to the D’s failure to meet repair obligations, and the pigeon infestation had been ongoing since the C moved into the property.

The D, whether personally or through her agents, failed to repair all defects listed in the attached schedule before the end of the tenancy or within a reasonable time following notice. The Schedule also states the date by which the defects were adequately repaired and the reasonable time suggested for remedying the defects.

A pre-action letter for housing disrepair was served outlining the disrepair and the relevant law relied on. The D failed to respond within the relevant timeframe as specified in the letter and multiple requests were made for a reply.

A second pre-action letter was thereafter served and a response was received in which the Defendant’s solicitors disputed the claim. Further correspondence was exchanged between the parties and a without prejudice offer was put forward which the D rejected.

The mediation took place via Zoom, was schedule for eight hours, but settled just under five hours.

Three years had passed since the start of this complicated dispute between the parties. The parties were engaged in a protracted legal battle. When one firm was brought out by another, it resulted in financial loss and a claimed breach of contract.

Fortunately, a costly trial was avoided. The accused was being pursued for a certain amount of money in his personal capacity as well as in his function as a director of his now-defunct business. The phone based mediation took less than a day to complete and was successful. Read the testimonial here.

This was a claim by the Claimant (C), against the Defendant (D) Commercial Insurance Services. It concerned the Claimant’s abortive purchase of a property in 2008 where the insured solicitors firm (ISF) acted for the C.

The ISF obtained professional indemnity insurance through the D for the 2009/2010 indemnity year and until 31 October 2010 by waiver, followed by 6 years run-off cover.

In 2008 ISF acted on behalf of the C and Bank of Scotland, Birmingham Midshires Division, in relation to the C’s proposed buy to let purchase of (“the Property”). The transaction was handled by a partner.

The C obtained a buy to let mortgage offer from BOS for £297,500 to buy the Property. The developer had already entered into a contract with X Ltd. The C was taking an assignment of that contract. The purchase price was £350,000. X Ltd apparently was buying the Property for £317,500 (its offer having been accepted in September 2007). The uplift and assignment were reported to BOS, which was content to proceed.

Subsequently the ISF submitted an unqualified Certificate of Title to BOS. Exchange of contracts and completion were to take place on the same day. The ISF transferred to Y Solicitors the sum of £350,600.  However, completion never took place. No explanation had ever been forthcoming as to why the matter did not proceed to exchange and completion and the monies were not returned. The concern is that Y Solicitors paid them away.

The ISF sought to pursue recovery for the C.  Who subsequently ceased to practice.  A claim was pursued against Y Solicitors on the C’s behalf for the return of the money.  Subsequently Counsel advised that specific performance of the purchase of the Property was not possible as contracts had not been exchanged. The only recourse was to try and recover the money.

The Claimant claims he finally discovered that BOS had recovered its loss on 1 March 2019 by documents Protopapas had obtained.

The Claimant sought to recover the sum of £135,303 as follows. The lost deposit of £53,100, mortgage repayments of £59,221, legal expenses of £22,982 as well as reserving the right to claim the alleged lost capital appreciation of the Property of approximately £200,000.The mediation lasted eight hours, was held in person and settled.

The Claimant (C) asserted that the Defendant (D) owed him nearly £30,000 after borrowing it. The D contested this, arguing that the debt was discharged because the parties had a contract for the D to undertake a building project on one of the C’s properties. C disputed that a contract existed or that any work had been completed. After three hours of in-person mediation, which was primarily done in Punjabi, a resolution was reached.

This dispute, was between two parties, under The Party Wall Act 1996, and had been on-going for almost six years and related to the damage incurred to a property, by the building works carried out at the adjoining property.

The dispute related to work undertaken on the Party Wall between the properties nearly six years ago.

A chartered surveyor, commenced work on the Party Wall, without a Party Wall agreement being in place.

Whilst works were undertaken, the party commissioning the work were not in occupation to oversee their builders, for whom they were wholly responsible.

Their builders were deemed to have been ‘cowboy builders’ with total disregard towards the neighbour’s  property. Despite being repeatedly asked to provide references and insurance details for their builders the neighbour’s concerns were ignored. A Party Wall Award was retrospectively put in place, and after much damage had already occurred to the neighbour’s property.

In order to facilitate these works, the neighbours agreed to vacate their property for two weeks and had not been recompensed for their outstanding accommodation costs. Further works continued on a piecemeal basis and their property sustained further damage.

Despite respective party wall surveyors having been appointed at the time, they were unable to agree the damage to their property in accordance with the Act. It was requested that the party wall surveyors refer this dispute to the ‘third surveyor’ but this was allegedly illegally denied by the two surveyors, who effectively told the aggrieved that they were not entitled in the circumstances to make such a referral.

Some time later, a signed Award, in which the two surveyors awarded the neighbour’s the paltry sum of £3735.00 to end the matter was received. This was a slight increase on the sum of £2735.01 offered previously. This was before further damage to their property was caused, further losses incurred, and further distress and inconvenience suffered.

The award was appealed at High Wycombe County Court as the compensation that had been awarded by the surveyors was wholly inadequate. Had they not appealed, they would have been left to accept the £3735.00 awarded, with no further recompense available.

The matter came before a Judge at Reading County Court. An order was made at this time. In accordance with the court order, an independent surveyor, agreed by both parties, was appointed to assess the damage to their property.

As required by the court order, three quotations from reputable builders were obtained, to repair the damage caused to their property, based on the findings of the independent surveyor in his report.

The defendants sold their adjoining property, to have the extensive damage to the neighbours property repaired, it would be necessary for them to enter into a new party wall agreement with the new neighbours. Who were completely unaware of the situation and respective surveyors would need to be appointed to oversee the repair works.

The court finally ordered mediation between the former neighbours and the aggrieved ones to avoid this matter going back before the court.

It was alleged that the behaviour of the former neighbours and complete lack of integrity had caused the aggrieved both considerable distress and anxiety, which had consequently had a detrimental effect on their  health and general well-being. Considering themselves to be the aggrieved party, which was not of their  making. They claimed had they had known that the other party would have behaved so badly, and with a blatant disregard for the law, they would never have consented to their works being undertaken nor would they have vacated their property to facilitate them.

It was most depressing having to live in a damaged property, and to look at that damage every day, for such a lengthy period of time. Furthermore, they were distraught that they needed to vacate their home again in the near future whilst the essential repairs to it were undertaken. Their lives would continue to be disrupted for some time to come.

This was an extremely emotional and tense mediation. It took eight hours, and an agreement was eventually found. Click here to read the testimonial.

The Defendants (“D”) and all their predecessors in Title had enjoyed access to and from their rear garden. They could walk down the side of their residential property (No 20) to the left as one looked from the road.

The property boundary between the Claimant’s (“C”) (No 21) and D’s properties was a wire mesh fence running from a wooden partition whom D’s predecessor had installed and through the middle of a hedge. The metal mesh fence denoted the boundary line.

The mesh fence enclosed D’s access all the way to the rear of their garden. D purchased their property in 2015.

As to the missing section of lightweight wire mesh fence, where there was no hedge, between the old hedge and the wooden partition installed by the previous owner, D stated that C was always stacking rubbish and heavy building materials up against it. That section of the fence perished as it wasn’t supported by the hedge. When it had perished, C started placing such materials against D’s house wall.

In May 2020, the hedge was overgrown. C agreed to D removing and replacing it with wooden posts and panels. Upon removal of the hedge, D marked out the line of the mesh fence. C agreed to this. When D was in absentia C’s son instructed fence contractors to move the boundary line to D’s detriment, thereby trespassing on D’s land and depriving D of their right of access, blocking a drainage pipe, manhole and a side window which now only partially opens all due to the incorrectly positioned fence.

This was mediated via online mediation and took nearly seven hours.

This related to a commercial landlord and tenant dispute. A claim for rent arrears for £60,000 was being sought. With a counter claim for £140,000.

The part 20 claimants claim was for damages for loss suffered by the part 20 claimants as a result of the part 20 defendant’s breach of lease between the parties. In failing to provide details of the insurance for the property and or failing to have the property repaired following a fire at the property across the road. And repayment of rent and or insurance premium overpaid by the part 20 claimants.  

Click here to read the testimonial.