Basically - the property was being sold....
We knew the guy who was going to buy the property - off our landlord.
And he was going to rent the building to us, for storage.
So - although moving our business out 20 APRIL - when the termination order was dated - we did keep stock in the ground level of the building (2 story building).The building - by DECEMBER was sold to a different person, and he let us take out what we needed.The landlords are now saying we owe rent for that period. April - December. during which they took over the paying of the council rates for the site.
OK - Thats one path I cant take - SO.....In the previous December I had found the landlord a buyer. We'd agreed a price (as I liased for them) - with the person providing proof of funding (and then taking over correspondance) - At this agreement stage I'd stated (on email) ...
in a position to offer £77,000 for the building (in total), we would then carry out the work on the property at our own cost, with the added "bonus" that I will not have to pay any more rent, whilst the paper work is being sorted out. (as we are keen to take over the premises ASAP)
To which they agreed - - - They are now saying that the agreement was for "just 1 month" - - -Would I be liable for any rent with this agreement in place ?This buyer pulled out in AUGUST due to the waste of time and costs which he was having to endure, due to the "paperwork" still no where being completed.
As far as I am aware - the person who put an offer in on the property after the April date, when my business had "left" the building (and later bought it), was not made aware of my occupancy.As the landlords are specifically after unpaid rent (not tresspassing "moeny") - then they cant have entered into negotiations about selling the property without informing the future buyer, that I was a tennant surely.So does this mean that they have not acted correctly in some way.
I have found out that the landlords took over the council rates from 20th April and classed it as unoccupied for a further year (8 months of which my items were still inside).As they took over the responsibility for the rates (which I was libel as per the lease), and given that they told the council it wasnt occupied, would it be fair to assume they cant claim "RENT", as I would no longer be held to the conditions of the lease, and therefore would actually have to claim some sort of compensation for tresspassing, not rent ?
I have checked the original lease and I was using the property (party) as a shop - and mostly as storage.Which they formulated the lease on.But I found out in the January (2 years later) - that the property did not have the relevant planning permission to be used for anything other than "a nightclub" - so that was the main reason why I felt I should move the business out - as the council had sent a letter to me saying I could be fined for not having the relevant planning permission.Could I have any basis to say the landlords falsely formulated the lease on incorrect information, and the terms of the lease are incorrect and void?
I have found a covering letter - which the landlords solicitors had sent me regarding my lease - The draft copy had a clause preventing the use for retail - and I questioned it, as I did in fact (already) use the building for retial -
The letter states:
“following your conversation with Alex Sweetman of GVA Grimley earlier today I have been asked to modify the form of lease to delete the specific exclusion on the use for retial purposes.”So would this be adequate proof to cancel the terms oof the lease for misrepresentation ?Thanks
We now have a court date - for the end of June.I am going to be counter-claiming against them for the Misrepresentation of the lease forcing me to relocate my business.Their estimated legal fees are +£13,000, on top of the so-called unpaid rent which they are after.Am I allowed to claim anything against them (also) for being a self-employed man, having to do this all myself due to not being in a possision to afford to pay for legal help ?