Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

[ABIDOXXX]

Hi
I was wondering if some can help me.

In September 2009 a tennant of mine called Manchester City Council after the ceiling colapsed from an over flowing bath above.
The tennant contacted the council without contacting me first.
The council builders attended the property and on the same day carried some work without contacting me first.

They then sent me a bill for £814.

I disputed the bill on a number of grounds firstly the tennant shouldnt have contacted the council.The tennant had an obligation to contact me first.
Secondly the council should have contacted me giving me notice to carry out the work.
I also disputed the bill because the amount billed didnt match the work that was carried out.The councils builders literally pulled the remainding area of damp plaster board off with their fingers.Cleaned up the mess and left.

The council wrote back to me explaining the work was carried out under emergency powers and that notice didnt need to be given and the bill still stands.

I ignored the bill because i felt i wasnt liable.

On the 4th December 2013 i receive a visit from Andrew Wilson & Co bailifs demanding £1442.

I was unaware of oweing any money so i contacted the County Court giving them the County court reference number.

They told me they only hold records for 3 years and gave me the number of Manchester city council to contact regarding my query.

I contacted Manchester City Council and they explained it was for unpaid bill from 2009.They also said they had got a county court judgement and the bill is registerd under the land charges 2006.

I explained again i dispute the bill and wish to appeal.

They told me i couldnt as it has been registered.

Can someone tell me what to do or give me any advice on what to do.

I want to appeal this and have the judgement removed.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

Whose bath overflowed?

Were they also one of your tenants or did someone else own the flat upstairs?

[Gorang]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

In my view

I think it should be the person/owner of the flat above (or their insurance ) that overflowed the bath that should be liable for any bills to fix the damage

Did you contact them at all, if so what was their response???


I think you could have 2 options here

You could try to get the judgement set aside then defend

OR

You could sue the person that overflowed the bath upstairs for any outstanding monies that you have had to pay out for any repairs including the councils (I think this could be the most probable action)

BUT I am NOT experienced enough to say for sure on which route you should definitely take so please wait for more experienced advice from others please

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

Did you receive any notification from County Court?

[bluebottle]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

Hi
I was wondering if some can help me.

In September 2009 a tennant of mine called Manchester City Council after the ceiling colapsed from an over flowing bath above.
The tennant contacted the council without contacting me first.
The council builders attended the property and on the same day carried some work without contacting me first.

They then sent me a bill for £814.

I disputed the bill on a number of grounds firstly the tennant shouldnt have contacted the council.The tennant had an obligation to contact me first.
Secondly the council should have contacted me giving me notice to carry out the work.
I also disputed the bill because the amount billed didnt match the work that was carried out.The councils builders literally pulled the remainding area of damp plaster board off with their fingers.Cleaned up the mess and left.

The council wrote back to me explaining the work was carried out under emergency powers and that notice didnt need to be given and the bill still stands.

I ignored the bill because i felt i wasnt liable.

On the 4th December 2013 i receive a visit from Andrew Wilson & Co bailifs demanding £1442.

I was unaware of oweing any money so i contacted the County Court giving them the County court reference number.

They told me they only hold records for 3 years and gave me the number of Manchester city council to contact regarding my query.

I contacted Manchester City Council and they explained it was for unpaid bill from 2009.They also said they had got a county court judgement and the bill is registerd under the land charges 2006.

I explained again i dispute the bill and wish to appeal.

They told me i couldnt as it has been registered.

Can someone tell me what to do or give me any advice on what to do.

I want to appeal this and have the judgement removed.

I have looked at your post and note you are a landlord. You will, therefore, be aware or ought to be aware of your legal obligation to keep any property you rent to residential tenants in good repair.

The questions I would ask of you are -

1. Were you readily-contactable on the day this incident occurred?
2. Is the building in question of timber-framed construction or was it built during the early part of the 20th Century, i.e. 1900 - 1930?
3. Is the building in question terraced, semi-detached or attached to or part of another building?

The answers you provide to these questions will give a better indication of whether you have a realistic prospect of successfully having the CCJ removed.

[wales01man]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

The OP was not aware of oweing any money?
This after disputing a bill?
If a bill is disputed does it go away?
If the first bill arrives by post then the reminders and court letters no doubt came the same way did the OP ignore these until the Bailiff calls?

Find it strange all this and a land charge should go unnoticed,time for OP to find out more and see if they have to pay I would think so amd then try to claim on someones Insurance.

[bluebottle]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

I agree with you, Wales. Local authorities do not carry out work, as described by the OP, without good and sufficient reason. Hopefully, when the OP has answered the questions I have listed in my earlier post, this should give a better idea as to why the local authority carried out the work.

[Gorang]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

Local authorities do not carry out work, as described by the OP, without good and sufficient reason.

The council wrote back to me explaining the work was carried out under emergency powers and that notice didnt need to be given

I have no idea about this but is "emergency powers" not "sufficient reason" for the council to go in and make the property "safe" maybe

[wales01man]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

Don't "Emergency Powers" mean its an Emergency?

[Gorang]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

Don't "Emergency Powers" mean its an Emergency?

Yes and that's why I'm wondering if the council could have been told by the tenant that the roof is falling in, or sumit along that lines, hence the council would HAVE to treat it as an emergency would they not??

As if the council didn't react to the phone call, and sumit happened which resulted in someone getting hurt or killed then could the council not be held responsible for NOT reacting, if it was proved that they got the phone call saying the building was thought to be unsafe and they did nothing??

Its the only thing I can think of that would give the council reason for attending a landlords property and the council would/could class it as giving them sufficient reason

I really don't know hence why I threw the question out there BUT I do think that would make sense as to why the council will go and attend to a landlords property (unless the property IS a council property) as you can hardly get the council to go to council properties under normal circumstances

BUT I could be talking rubbish here as I do NOT know how this stuff works with the councils

[bluebottle]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

Local authorities do not carry out work, as described by the OP, without good and sufficient reason.
I have no idea about this but is "emergency powers" not "sufficient reason" for the council to go in and make the property "safe" maybe

If the local authority in the OP's case used emergency powers, then they do not have to give notice to the property owner. Your analysis is spot-on, Gorang.

[enquirer]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

You are the owner of the lower property.
Your tenant occupies that property.
Who owns and who occupies the property above?

The council has powers under s77 and s78 of the Building Act 1984.

s77 Dangerous Buildings
ss1 The council may apply to a magistrates court for an order requiring the owner to remedy dangerous defects within a stated time.
ss2 Failure to do so means the council may do the work and recover the costs. The owner may also be fined.

This is the route to be taken unless there is immediate danger (not inconvenience).

s78 Dangerous Buildings - Emergency measures
ss1 The council may act immediately to remove danger.
ss2 The council must attempt to contact the owner (were you available? Did the tenant have your contact details?).
ss3-4 Having acted, the council may seek to recover its costs.
ss5-6 The court is required to challenge the council at every step - could it have acted under s77? Were its actions and costs reasonable? Should the costs be borne in full or in part by the owner?
ss7 If the owner has sustained loss as a result of the councils actions under this section, he or she may challange those actions in the magistrates court and seek compensation.

From the foregoing, it is quite obvious that the council has acted ultra vires. It also appears that the obtaining of the CCJ may have been more than a little irregular. Follow the usual route to challenge this - you had no knowledge, etcetera.

[wales01man]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

As the OP knew of the invoice for the work and disputed it,stands to reason they might well have known about the letters that followed leading up to the CCJ being granted ,
There must be a paper trail from the start of all of this till the CCJ and then the Bailiffs being brought in ?
Would a SAR to the council get this info

[bluebottle]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

Notwithstanding, Enquirer, if the ceiling collapse could have lead to the bearers holding up the floor above giving way and affecting the structural integrity of the building, then that is something a local authority would need to deal with quickly, especially if the property holder could not be readily contacted or not doing anything could affect neighbouring or adjoining properties.

[Gorang]

Re: Being chased for a debt i dont believe i owe.

The council wrote back to me explaining the work was carried out under emergency powers and that notice didnt need to be given and the bill still stands.

So by the looks of this then the OP can contest this by means of

ss5-6 The court is required to challenge the council at every step - could it have acted under s77? Were its actions and costs reasonable? Should the costs be borne in full or in part by the owner? Not in my view as it was NOT the owners fault the damage was cause, that resulted in having to react, in my mind it should be the owner of the proverty above (or their insurance)
ss7 If the owner has sustained loss as a result of the councils actions under this section, he or she may challange those actions in the magistrates court and seek compensation.

Yes they have sustained losses so could be in line for compo

ALL this PROVIDING the OP does NOT own the property above and that the OP's property is NOT owned by the council

I suppose it was just easier for the council to go after the OP instead of the one that was responsible and liable for the repair Costs, the owner of the above property

which leads me to my original post again

I think you could have 2 options here

You could try to get the judgement set aside then defend

OR

You could sue the person that overflowed the bath upstairs for any outstanding monies that you have had to pay out for any repairs including the councils (I think this could be the most probable action)

OP could apply for set aside on the above grounds, and if granted the council would need to go after the responsible party for the damage

or the OP could just plainly go after the responsible party

OR do BOTH

apply for set aside to be removed and council can get their money any other way they see fit
and
go after the responsible party for the additional repair costs as the council only made safe and clear up

BUT this is only my view (and I could be wrong) and I think I would be seriously looking at doing BOTH