Are you saying that the letter written to the solicitor, which was in response to a letter from the solicitor, contains defamatory statements against various people?
Are some of the statement true? Can you give an example or two of the untruths?
Who is the person? May we have the background detail please?
What exactly is the problem with the dog?
I’m trying to get to the bottom of the facts here: have you in the past voted for people not to have property but then, solely your property to someone who has a pet/dog?
What does the lease say about the ability for leaseholders to have pets?
Has some other leaseholder objected to that?
Bearing in mind that defamation claims are certainly not anything that you would want to do yourself and can be extremely expensive, do you just want an apology or damages compensation through the court?
This could easily cost £10,000 with regard to your own legal costs plus, if your claim was not successful, the defendant’s legal costs even though you would get all those costs back in the event that your claim was successful. You may get compensation/damages but they may be nominal. Are you able to risk/font that litigation? If not, how far do you want to go with this?
Thank you. On what basis as he alleged double standards?
All the solicitor seemed to be doing was asking the chairman of the management company to confirm the result 6:1 in favour.
I’m not certain why he’s made the allegations.
Thank you. I first it was something to do with the dog but that seems to be irrelevant from what you have said, I got the impression (wrongly it seems) that your buyer wanted consent for the dog and you are happy to give the consent because he wanted to sell the property but that of a previous occasion, you had complained when somebody else had wanted to keep a dog. Hence the double standards. Clearly, I am wrong.
If this is just out of the blue then I cannot see how it can be anything other than defamatory. It was published to a third party. Hence, it is libellous if it is defamatory. It doesn’t matter that it was sent to your solicitor. If for example someone wrote to your solicitor and said that Mrs XYZ is a murderer, then it’s a published statement and the fact that it is sent to the solicitor is immaterial.
What you might want to do is call an extraordinary general meeting of the management company of which you are a member, to remove this person as chairman because of this has happened to you, then obviously, it can happen to everyone else who may also want to sell at some stage in the future and may not want to be on the end of one of his rants raves or moods.
What you have to do now is decide whether you want to risk bringing a defamation action which is not going to be quick or cheap or just threaten that unless he withdraws the statement and undertakes not to make any such statements in the future.
It depends how far you want to go with this.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Please rate the service positive. It’s an important part of the process by which experts get paid.
We can still exchange emails.
I would emphasise the point to everybody else at the meeting, but some stage in the future, they could be on the receiving end of the chairman’s vitriol. I agree with what you’ve been told that because of the pending sale, the last thing you want is to be in the middle of protracted litigation. You need to go to that meeting with the emotion removed.
You’ve summarise this in the last sentence but one of your reply. I hope you get it resolved. Best wishes.
I think is letter is a very measured letter and I get the impression that he was falling before he was pushed. I can’t see what the issue is over the dog. It’s simply a case of giving consent and the reason of giving consent is because it can withdrawn if the dog becomes a nuisance. In that case, as you are aware, the remedy is to get rid of the animal not to have it put down!
With regard to the dog not putting feet on the communal areas, that is a totally unreasonable suggestion.
There is only a requirement for the management company or the freeholder to give consent, not individual leaseholders. It may be that the freeholder/management company want to do that but it’s nothing to do with the buyer or the seller.
I don’t know why you say obviously you were not included in that vote. It doesn’t matter that you have a vested interest, you should be included. Until such time as you are no longer a leaseholder, your view counts.
When you think about it, that’s why he’s resigned. Total control. If he was got rid of, that would be something outside his control.
There is no reason why record of the discussion of the meeting post-resignation cannot put the record straight so that outsiders will know what happened. You make that point yourself.
If you do need any advice in the future, please don’t hesitate to ask for me personally by putting my name at the top of the threat. Thank you. Best wishes.