Jim Fitzpatrick MP now adds to his suggestion that the Property Tribunal “stinks” by suggesting the system is rigged against leaseholders.
In a @HouseofCommons debate earlier this week on First-tier Tribunals, I outlined why the system is rigged against leaseholders. Yesterday's judgement in Manchester confirmed the fears of many. pic.twitter.com/sBKyNC9RHm
— Jim Fitzpatrick (@Fitz_xMP) July 27, 2018
Tribunal President McGrath will no doubt argue the problem due to the law, not her Tribunal. There are some who start to wonder if her Tribunal is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
The reason for Jim Fitzpatrick’s ire is the latest Tribunal cladding decision for Cypress Place and Vallea Court in Manchester. The decision has gone entirely against the leaseholders.
There must also be a question to be asked why on earth did the government provide £465,000 to its ineffectual advisory body LEASE to help on cladding when cladding leaseholders tell us that the only help LEASE has to offered is to read the lease and provide the contact details of the National Pro Bono Centre.
It might have been far better if the government had funded the National Pro Bono Centre to help the leaseholders in these cladding cases.
Cladding leaseholders will also see it as very wrong that Minister Kit Malthouse attended a leaseholder cladding forum in Parliament only last week where he assured leaseholders that things are moving forward and that government expected developers and freeholders to pay and not pass on costs
Clearly, the Tribunal in Manchester were not listening to the Minister and Judge Wood decided that the leaseholders should pay for everything.
The three judges in the hearing awarded the landlords the right to recover the costs of the waking watch. the replacement of the cladding and even declined to limit the landlord from passing on his costs for taking the case to the Tribunal.
The Manchester Tribunal and Property Tribunal President McGrath have so far declined to confirm whether Judge Woods is qualified as a solicitor or a barrister of if they are one the salaried or part-time judges.
There has to be an enormous question as to whether lower tier tribunal judges should be considering such important cases. Do first tribunal judges have the legal skills to consider these sorts of cases? There are specific rules in place to ensure that certain types of cases go the Upper Tribunal, especially if there is a chance there is a chnce that there will be appealed to the UT anyway.
- Rule 25.3.a sets out that complex evidence should go to the Upper Tribunal.
- Rule 25.3.b sets out that a complex or important principles should go to the Upper Tribunal.
- Rule 25.2.c cases involving a large financial sum should go to the Upper Tribunal. This case meets all three rules as have other cladding cases but all have stayed in the Lower Tribunal.
A copy of the Cypress Place and Vallea Court decision can be read HERE
Related posts:
Parliament told the Property Tribunal ‘stinks’: it lets down leaseholders again and again
Grenfell cladding leaseholders despair of government doing anything ..
Fury in Manchester as Lendlease wins £160m contract to refurb city hall, while dumping Grenfell cladding costs on leaseholders
Tribunal rules Citiscape leaseholders must pay to remove Grenfell cladding. Will this mean some lose their homes?
£3m Grenfell cladding bills fall on residents at Lendlease’s Cypress Place and Vallea Court
Admin the part about Kit Malthouse in the posting is this correct?
By providing £465,000 to the ineffectual advisory body LEASE to help on cladding issues. Government can say we are striving to help in these matters. To show we are striving we sent Minister Kit Malthouse to attend a leaseholder cladding forum in Parliament only last week. He assured leaseholders, things are moving forward and that government expected developers and freeholders to pay and not pass on costs.
Sadly this is just one of many cases.
Yes the FTT is rigged (or at least biased) against leaseholders. When I took my own case at the tribunal it was shocking to see how judge Vance ( who has in fact since being promoted and is paid very well by the taxpayers, no doubt he doesn’t have to live in a leasehold property managed by the ‘mafia’) kept asking leading questions to help the freeholders case.
I also felt the way the case was written up afterwards was not representative of what really happened. Important information has been omitted or glossed over.
I will try to find a link to the case and post it here. The case appears to be missing from the LEASE side. The property address was 7 Regent Square Wc1h 8hz london.
Thank you Sophie for having the courage to report your experience, including stating names…considering the potential ‘fallout’ from your ‘daring to do it’ (as I know only too well: summary of my case, up to Nov 16, on my website: http://www.leasehold-outrage.com/index.htm – added to my experience in 2017-18 with (among others) the tribunals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3AWdhE81Vo and the courts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF3Fm3nu23Y).
You state the decision you were issued with “was not representative of what really happened”. Based on my experience, I can well believe that.
My latest experience relates to a Jan 17 application filed against me. For reasons extensively supported by the evidence, I describe the 4 Aug 17 decision as blatantly corrupt. As detailed on the Tribunals video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3AWdhE81Vo, it led me to file an appeal, and to then appeal to Upper Tribunal (as well as file for judicial review).
My prior experience was in 2002-03, when this tribunal was then named Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) (my website: http://www.leasehold-outrage.com/pg_lvt/index.htm). Whilst there was glaring bias towards the landlord and his cabal of ‘managing’ agents and lawyers, at least the 17 Jun 03 decision was a fair representation of what took place.
The sting came at the end: it failed to perform its statutory duty by not stating the impact of its decision on the global sum demanded; to cover it up, it lied about me in its so-called ‘summary of the case’ (http://www.leasehold-outrage.com/pg_lvt/summary.htm).
ALL those with the power to do something about it KNOW that the tribunal is more often than not failing leaseholders i.e. failing to ensure justice. The fact that, at least 15 years on, it continues to do it leads to the conclusion that its (well exposed) appalling conduct is endorsed at the highest level – and thus set to continue.
Is the state going to reimburse us the tens of thousands of pounds we have spent asking for the tribunal’s help believing that, by paying for it through our taxes, it would perform as per its legal remit?
Will it also compensate us for the horrendous trauma and consequent impact on our health caused as a result? (In my case, had it ruled fairly, I would have been out of my flat – and out of the country for ever. Instead, I have been subjected to 17 years of horrendous, sheer utter hell – with the outcome that I now have cancer).
Maybe we should all get together and demand it. Enough of the abuse by these amoral medievalist monsters!
Funny coincidence. Our case at old LVT was written up very selectively too. The case turned out defeated from the start when the agent acting for the LL ( LL played no part) ignored directions and then dumped loads of false documents at the last minute.
At the hearing the barrister for the agent was allowed to rely on Agent using some kind of tablet device to get live instructions from the office. No agent witness statement was submitted to allow cross examination. The chair was miffed from the start to be referred to our detailed case papers, wanting to limit matters to our summary application form. Did not appear to have read the papers. Chair denied right to cross question our own witnesses while leaving barrister free to attack them at will and at length.
The agent’s barrister effectively ran the hearing, blocking any attempt to challenge the false documents and mocking our lay representation as “Perry Mason” attempts. Sounded to me like a well used in-joke at tribunals – never reported on? Panel had a good knowing laugh at that joke anyway.
Chair turned to sarcasm too. So much that at the end of day one we said it seemed a waste of our time as the theory there were few rules seemed to leave the barrister free to make them up to suit. We were ordered back for day two, then barracked through our attempts to sum up. Barrister not once was interrupted by panel and allowed to hold forth as long as breath held out.
I have worked in quasi judicial panels in public sector that took more care to give the lay public a fair hearing.
Tribunals are in my opinion rigged as said.
Nice little sting is the way LL gets costs every which way it goes. Our LVT awarded costs on the service charge even though LL agent was respondent to our application and lease only allows landlord costs for pursuing debts/breach. Chair never bothered to justify by reference to any lease clause.
Mind, it was interesting to observe how little a long served barrister understood of accrual accounting. Panel too.
All a farce really. Never go to tribunal of choice.
Paddy, you state that your “The case turned out to be defeated from start…”. Ditto in my case in (see, above, my reply to Sophie Peach’s 28 July 18 comments).
About your being “dumped loads of false documents at the last minute”. In my case, whilst I do not know whether they were “false”, over 1,000 loose pages of invoices, without a contents page, were dumped on me – just 10 days before the substantive ‘hearing’, and 3 weeks after I had filed and served my witness statement (extracts from my statements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3AWdhE81Vo).
Comment, let alone sanction from the tribunal? None there came!
My experience of the leasehold tribunal was more than concerning –
1 The freeholder failed to meet the directions set my the tribunal
Failed to provide his surveyors valuations on time, Failed to make contact so both our surveyors could discuss the case despite repeated efforts on our part and yet the frerholder was not penalised.
The freeholders surveyor did not attend the tribunal and when the head surveyor on the judges panel asked where he was, my freeholder stated that as I was not paying for one he had not instructed one AND THIS FREEHOLDER IS A WELL KNOW NEW HOMES COMPANY…. yet, all of the freeholders valuations were excepted and my surveyors was rejected – despite my surveyor working & living in the Bedford area for over 20 years!!
2. During the tribunal the Surveyor on the judges panel agreed with me that “…the ground rent does not double & it is far more complex…” yet both our comments were ignored by the judge
3. My freeholder claimed he paid his surveyor £600 for a desktop valuation (no compariables etc), yet my surveyor visited my property, provided a valuation, compariables and calculations and charged £300 + vat…and the other sides fees were reduced to £250 + vat. Yet, various surveyors advised me prior to instructing a surveyor that a desktop valuation is not worth the paper it was written on & was insufficient for tribunal purposes.
4. The freeholder tried to claim £2500 legal fees (outside London and in his own premises), yet my London lease extension practice charged a flat fee of less than half. I researched prices of lease extension solicitors in his area & they ranged from £900- £1100. The freeholders legal fees were reduced but not even to the highest in his area.
5. The judge failed to acknowledge any points that I raised, however when asked for a copy of the minutes and any recording there was none.
The whole tribunal process is an absolute shambles & is without question heavily biased in the freeholders interest…abd needs to be reviewed IMMEDIATELY!!!! I raised my concerns with supporting evidence and it was completely disregarded…yet, if I had not have gone to the expense of attending the freeholder would have got the whole 100% of case In his favour, as opposed to the 90% he achieved!
If you think about it, a leaseholder is only likely to come before the FTT once in their life, whilst the freeholder’s agents most probably spend most of their time at the FTT?
So most of them will be familiar with any panel and quite possibly on very friendly terms with them as well?
What chance the leaseholder?
And when the system is shown to have been corrupted what then I ask?
Any answers Benjamin Mire?