Discharging rainwater

[horleyox]

Re: Discharging rainwater

Sorry for the typos/auto-correct.

Another thing I should have added is that this litigation 'solicitor' is not actually a qualified solicitor according to a Law Society and Google search. He would appear to freelance or be an associate 'litigation manager' for a couple of small, local law firms but I'm not sure of his status. His name is not only any letterhead. Given his lack of credentials, am I still obliged to respond?

horleyox

[des8]

Re: Discharging rainwater

Well it is a criminal offence for a person to call themselves a solicitor or act as a solicitor if they are not on the roll of solicitors! @Peridot might be interested.

Regarding the acquiring of right of ownership by prescription, you correctly point out that it requires valid recorded title covering the land in question for 10 years.
However as mentioned previously they may have a defence of estoppel.

Your neighbours aren't going to do anything regarding this, are they?
They will sit there with their building on your property and discharging water down your walls unless you put a stop to it.

[Peridot]

Re: Discharging rainwater

Hi horleyox,
You don't have to be a solicitor to be a litigation specialist so check the wording carefully. Litigation manager for example does not imply they are a solicitor, but if the person is calling themselves a Litigation Solicitor and they aren't, then that is a different matter.

Correspondence from a law firm should state the name of the person writing, their job title and contact details. Have you checked the firm's website. There may be confirmation of who the individual is? They could be a Legal Executive, a legal case worker, paralegal for example, none of which prevent them working for a law firm and having their own client's etc but it should be made clear what position they hold within the firm in any correspondence.

You can search the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) for decisions made against firms or individuals. If the individual claims to be working for a particular firm, have you contacted the firm to ask what job title he has?

Here is the SRA website where you may find more information that could help http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/consumers.page
Do check the firm's website also, it may shed some light. If this person is signing off as a solicitor and they aren't listed as such on the firm's website I would contact the firm directly too.

[horleyox]

Re: Discharging rainwater

I thought it was 20 years. But the solicitor has admitted there have been multiple disputes with owners and occupiers during this time, so these objections presumably mean the principle of prescription does not apply.

I hear what you are saying on the neighbour's continuing behaviour, but at the end of the day I still want to be able to live in my house and not feeling that I am constantly battling! Whatmore they come across as respectable pensioners to my neighbours. I am the one being painted as being in the wrong and treated accordingly.

I am also conscious of having to disclose formal disputes and potentially lowering the value of my property when I come to sell it by at least £50k!

horleyox

[horleyox]

Re: Discharging rainwater

I raised this with him and he replied that I was being ludicrous and should get on with providing a substantive response. He's not named on the letterhead or website and I checked the SRA site too. He is not a solicitor and not regulated, but the firm he is doing work for is. I might email one of the five recognised SRA partners and ask who is responsible for managing his work, or alternatively say that I would prefer to correspond with someone who is regulated, give his letter to me contains several false allegations and legal assertions that appear unfounded.

My afternoon was spent calling HM Land Registry - no record of any boundary changes being recorded to either property over the past 50 years; the RICS boundary dispute resolution service - no record of previous adjudications at these addresses; and seeking advice from a local law firm on the grounds for ownership by prescription when there have been multiple objections by owners and occupiers of my property in the past, which have apparently been resolved, but there is no paperwork to prove this.

horleyox

[des8]

Re: Discharging rainwater

I thought it was 20 years. But the solicitor has admitted there have been multiple disputes with owners and occupiers during this time, so these objections presumably mean the principle of prescription does not apply.

I hear what you are saying on the neighbour's continuing behaviour, but at the end of the day I still want to be able to live in my house and not feeling that I am constantly battling! Whatmore they come across as respectable pensioners to my neighbours. (That's because like me they have been around long enough to pull the wool over others'eyes!) I am the one being painted as being in the wrong and treated accordingly.

I am also conscious of having to disclose formal disputes and potentially lowering the value of my property when I come to sell it by at least £50k!

horleyox

Whilst your neighbour owns his flat roof, he doesn't have a right to claim ownership of the land on which it stands or overhangs.
For a claim based on prescription there is needed a valid recorded title and "peaceable" occupation.... both seem to be missing.

I would suggest the firm that have written to you, having taken instruction are doing their best for their client.
If this means prevarication and even using language that almost amounts to bullying, that is what they will do.

Did not your precontract enquiries throw up the existence of the previous owner's problems with the neighbours?

[horleyox]

Re: Discharging rainwater

Not at all. They were buy to let investors! I will use your phrase though if that's OK because this litigator is coming across as a complete shister!

Horleyox

[des8]

Re: Discharging rainwater

your welcome... good luck

[Peridot]

Hi Horleyox,
Did you not get a client care letter from the person you instructed? The client care letter should stipulate what the person's role is at the firm and also who is his manager (as well as providing confirmation of the work they are doing for you and the likely cost of the work. If you haven't had a client care letter, you are entitled to one. You should make a formal complaint to the firm. Once this is done you are within your rights to make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman (LeO), if matters are not sorted out by using the firm's complaints procedure. You have to complain to the firm before you can go to LeO

[des8]

Hi Horleyox,
Did you not get a client care letter from the person you instructed? The client care letter should stipulate what the person's role is at the firm and also who is his manager (as well as providing confirmation of the work they are doing for you and the likely cost of the work. If you haven't had a client care letter, you are entitled to one. You should make a formal complaint to the firm. Once this is done you are within your rights to make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman (LeO), if matters are not sorted out by using the firm's complaints procedure. You have to complain to the firm before you can go to LeO

I don't believe Horleyfox has actually instructed anyone. The litigator's letter was from the neighbour's instructed firm.

[Peridot]

If you aren't the client Horleyox, then of course you wouldn't be entitled to client care letters etc (sorry if I've confused things). Surely whether the person is authorised or not, isn't and won't be your issue. They aren't acting for you.

Their client is the one that should be concerned, if the person is holding themselves out as something they are not. Provided you have received confirmation from the firm that this person works for them (or is on their website as a legal advisor or equivalent) then I'm not sure that I understand the issue for you.

As I mentioned above, t

he person with the problem if this individual is holding themselves out as a qualified solicitor and isn't, is their client. Any insurance or cover afforded the firm for negligent advice is for their client's use.

[des8]

But Peridot, as it is a criminal offence for a person to call themselves a solicitor or act as a solicitor if they are not on the roll of solicitors, should OP follow this up as a good citizen?

[Peridot]

Thanks des8 It is of course a matter for him, if he wishes to. I just wonder what benefit (other than being a good citizen of course) would be to the OP. If the person who wrote the letter is contracted to or employed by the firm then there will be indemnity insurance to cover him, but again this is not something to concern the OP, as he is not their client.

I don't see an issue in contacting one of the senior partners at the firm to confirm that the person does work for them and if he did sign off his letter as a solicitor and he isn't, they need to be made aware. However, don't expect them to discuss any matters with you, due to their own client and employee confidentiality rules. I suppose the other concern would be that maybe someone has obtained some of their letter head and may not be authorised by the firm to deal with this matter. It would then flag the issue to the firm, if there is one.

I'm not sure we got down to the exact wording used to sign off the letter received and whether the sender stated they were actually a solicitor. If that is the case, then do point this out to the firm when you speak to them.

As far as the content of the letter is concerned, if this person is an employee of the firm, then the fact they have certain inaccuracies or errors in their letter is not of any relevance and inaccuracies can be dealt with in any response provided, if relevant and/or as part of any future negotiations.

As others have indicated going to Court over boundary disputes is never a good thing, so if negotiations and mediation are offered I would seriously consider it, but would also suggest you get some advice on your position so you can go in forewarned, so to speak.

[horleyox]

Hello,

Re the boundary dispute, I have responded to the solicitor's letter today, providing a substantive response in a civil manner. However, given his prevarication and threats, I have stated that I would prefer any future correspondence on the matter to come from a regulated solicitor, who the SRA require to comply with a set of principles and code of conduct, and copied in the most senior of five regulated solicitors at the firm to my reply. I have also shared the contents of the letter with my local police force, who have said they will attend and may record criminal damage if my neighbour's carry out their threat, despite it currently being a civil rather than criminal matter.

Re the illegal rainwater discharging, tomorrow I intend to send another letter in full accordance with CPR stating my claim and seeking as a remedy that my neighbour's install a permanent solution to their drainage problem within 90 days or I shall instigate court proceedings (after an offer of ADR of course). I intend to only seek a token sum for the damage caused to date so they cannot continue to argue that I am trying to extort money from them or that the damage caused may be longer term.

Any further advice appreciated.

PS I've just dropped the solicitor who did my conveyancing when I bought the property 3 years ago and who has been giving me periodic advice on the various disputes that have since arisen and were not addressed at the time of purchase on the grounds of incompetence. Anyone on here fancy becoming my conveyancing-cum-litigation solicitor??

horleyox

[Peridot]

Hopefully, you'll get a sensible response and things can move forward.

The only other avenue that may be worth considering would be a claim against the previous owners, if you can prove the issue has been long standing and they were aware, but didn't declare it on the property information form they completed pre-contract. As the freeholder and landlord they would have been the one's responsible for and no doubt aware of any issues.

I mention this purely on the basis of the information that has come to light regarding an alleged 20 year issue. It is something you'd need specialist litigation advice upon. Of course if the potential defendant doesn't have the finances to settle any claim then there is little point in pursuing this line of enquiry, just a thought.