Our neighbor parked his huge commercial diesel truck with a 3.5 tonne flatbed in a parking lot in our project. Sometimes two or three of these trucks were parked in different places.
In December 2021, we filed a complaint with the administrators of our development.
Both our neighbor – who is a tenant – and his landlord – who owns the house next door but does not live there – were concerned about the parking situation.
The manager appointed lawyers to put pressure on our neighbor and the landlord.
We made it clear to the property manager that we wanted them to try to recover all of the lawyers’ legal fees from the landlord, and that they should not pay the costs themselves or add them to the council budget.
At the end of December 2022, our neighbor finally stopped parking his last remaining truck on the construction project. And the lawyers billed them for £1,779.60.
It was agreed that the landlord would be held responsible for the bill. But we recently contacted the business manager who won’t tell us if the legal bill has been paid. Will we be held liable for the costs in the future? LT
Instructing a lawyer stopped the neighbor from parking his truck in the residential area (stock image)
MailOnline Real estate expert Myra Butterworth replies: It is good to hear that the thorn in the side has been addressed and that the problem has been resolved without the need for legal proceedings.
We speak to a legal expert about whether you are legally liable for any part of the lawyers’ £1,779.60 bill.
Stephen Gold, ex-judge and author, explains: The parking lot that enraged our questioners was against the promises made by the owner of the neighboring property in the bill of sale when they bought it.
Stephen Gold is a retired judge and author
There is a small complication because it was not the actual owner who caused the problems, but their tenant.
The alleged behavior stopped without the need for legal proceedings.
However, if a lawsuit had been filed for an injunction against the neighboring owner or their tenant – or both – then based on what our interrogators tell us, I am confident it would have been successful.
An injunction probably prohibited any repetition of the infringements and, in all likelihood, whoever was charged should be sentenced to pay the legal costs of the management company.
If our questioners and other owners of the development affected by the breaches agreed with the managing agents to pay the lawyers’ bill for taking the case, they would be stuck with that agreement and would have to pay.
It is not uncommon for developers, management companies or management agents to enter into such an agreement before starting a lawsuit in favor of property owners in a project. I understand that our questioners disagreed.
It seems that the infringements have stopped after correspondence from the lawyers. It is not known whether the attorneys have received a commitment from the neighboring owner or their tenant to be responsible for all or part of the attorney’s bill.
I suspect there was no such commitment denying legal responsibility and at the same time making a commitment to good conduct in the future.
That is often the case in situations like this. In the unlikely event of a commitment, the management agents would have to deduct what has been recovered from the attorneys’ fees charged from others for the development.
Our interrogators think the lawyers may be relying on a clause in the neighboring owner’s bill of sale to get them to pay.
It states that each owner must indemnify the developers “against all damages costs and other liabilities arising from the non-compliance or non-compliance by the transferee (the adjacent owner) of any covenant relating to the property.”
This section cannot catch the lawyer’s bill. It’s to the benefit of the developer rather than the management company who I understand instructed the lawyers through the management agents.
Our inquirers and their neighbors own their property. They therefore do not have the same options as a leaseholder to submit such a dispute to a tribunal.
That is the law as it stands now. Whether the attorney’s bill, with or without a deduction, can lawfully be added to the alimony – including the neighbor’s alimony – depends entirely on the wording of the deed that applies to our questioners and all their neighbors.
Let’s look at that deed again. The only relevant section that could have confused our enquirers, states that maintenance costs ‘may include costs incurred by the management company in the establishment or defense of legal claims or other proceedings against or by any person’.
But no lawsuit was filed. I do not believe that the steps taken by the lawyers amounted to “actions or other proceedings”, even though they included a threat to initiate proceedings that caused the climb down.
Our enquirers are not legally liable for any part of the attorneys’ bill of £1,779.60.
Stephen Gold is an ex-judge and author of ‘The Return of Breaking Law’ published by Bath Publishing. For more information about service charges, visit breaking law.nl