Gallions point marina repossessed

[Pavalijo]

It is a sound argument that that eviction order was not enforceable. The council would have to go back to court to get an order evicting the person (a company is a person at law) that has been occupying the land - and she states that's the company. But that's only going to take the council a day: either the company had the right to occupy the property or it didn't. Once there's a correctly served eviction order she'd have to make a case that the company was entitled to carry on operating on the property - and we have seen no argument for that amid all the verbiage.

However, given the misleading statements so far, it's possible that the eviction order in her name is valid. For example, if she had latterly been paying the rent in her own name, or if, say, she'd signed the original lease in her own name before incorporating the company, then she probably was at law the occupier, so a court's eviction order in her name would be correct. Without a more reliable source of information than we have seen, we cannot know.

[Edit:] I see that Pavalijo has confirmed that she was indeed the original lessee, so notwithstanding the contestable matter of whether the landlord's subsequent acceptance of rent from the limited company rather than from her constituted acceptance that she had transferred the lease to the company, the enforcement order was perfectly valid in her name. Here is another example of where we are being fed a slanted version of the facts.

I believe that Leigh advised earlier that the lease had been in the name of herself and her father.

Belle Serene may be a lawyer? As stated I suspect that eviction was ordered by the court following service of notice under S25 of L&T Act 1954. If it can be proven that an assignment has occurred by acceptance of rent from the company, would the landlord not have to serve a valid S25 notice (ie on the company) before it can take possession? In which case they should serve a 6 month notice. But I would think that they will still get possession, given the clear intention and likelihood of development. However I question Belle Serene’s suggestion that it would take a day to correct the (possible) error.

It would be interesting to know if the alleged assignment took place whilst the lease was in place. If so I wonder if the company might make an application for a new lease in 12 months in the hope that it is proven to be a defective S25 notice. The landlord would be able to object on the same grounds, but would be delayed.

Would be good to know more but I repeat that there will be unknown facts that prevents us from anything other than speculation (ie this is not professional advice!!)

 

[Pavalijo]

That contains "if planning permission is given, building could begin in 2020", in which case it seems very harsh to evict the current businesses - including the marina - two years early.

2020 starts in just over a year! This is a major development and a last minute delay caused by failing to achieve vacant possession of the site would incur huge cost. There is the need to move all occupiers of the marina and possibly other enabling works, so it doesn’t seem too early to me

 

[BelleSerene]

I believe that Leigh advised earlier that the lease had been in the name of herself and her father.

Belle Serene may be a lawyer?...

Would be good to know more but I repeat that there will be unknown facts that prevents us from anything other than speculation (ie this is not professional advice!!)

I don't think she did. The OP's image shows that the court possession orders were in her and his name though, and given the wonky logic applied in a rant or two earlier, I'm more inclined to believe the council got the lessee right in the court papers.

Blimey no, I ain't no lawyer guv.

Yes, it would be good to know more. Hard to know where to go for facts though, as the lessee has hardly made a reasonable case. Pass the popcorn.

 

[Leigh@Gallions]

I don't think she did. The OP's image shows that the court possession orders were in her and his name though, and given the wonky logic applied in a rant or two earlier, I'm more inclined to believe the council got the lessee right in the court papers.

Blimey no, I ain't no lawyer guv.

Yes, it would be good to know more. Hard to know where to go for facts though, as the lessee has hardly made a reasonable case. Pass the popcorn.

"Pass the popcorn"?

And there we have it. What a callous attitude.

My situation is of course nothing more than a mildly entertaining scenario for you, but good, honest people's lives have been obliterated and their lifes' work unlawfully hijacked and stolen, and insensitive comments like that (along with several others from unpleasant, rude and downright nasty individuals on this thread) are the reason why I feel no obligation to provide you with any further information.

Besides, there remains an ongoing legal process which naturally precludes me from sharing finer details. It would also be foolish to 'show one's hand' to persons unknown, especially to those whose only interest is from a voyeuristic perspective, so I'm afraid you'll all just have to find something else to amuse you.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Why does what a newspaper writes makes the slightest difference?!

It doesn't. Why would it? Can't see your point.

But if the redevelopment is not supposed to start for two years, why clear the existing businesses off now?

 

[john_morris_uk]

Oh we knew did we? From the day we took the lease out? Of course we bloody didn't! Would I have not had kids, put every penny into the place and flushed my bloody life down the toilet if I'd known FFS???? How dare you? Promises (both oral and written) were made, and before you ask, YES I have proof. Then we find out almost three decades later that they were just using us? How the hell do you think we feel? Some idiotic comments on this thread; we were not just tenants - we were the founders. We were not 'squatters' either. Squatters don't pay rent. Morons dissing me for being angry and 'clearly not been to finishing school' after being ambushed without notice and goaded by a jumped-up little pr*ck from the GLA who did nothing but smirk and look down his nose at me, he was clearly enjoying his 'work' and idiots on here are surprised I reacted the way I did? What would any of you do eh? The day before I'd spent all day at Bart's with Dad & consultant told us there's no more treatment as nothing can help him now, I had all that on my mind and then boom! I'm literally thrown out on the street with nothing in front of everyone (for maximum humiliation), hadn't even cleaned my teeth or had chance to wipe my arse properly. How would ANY of you lot react? Well? Give your heads a wobble. You're like a load of vultures. All big men behind a keyboard ain't ya? Well I'll bet my tits I've got bigger balls than any of you. So if any of you have ANYTHING else to say about me, my business or situation, then message me and we'll arrange to meet face to face. Let's see if you've all got the minerals to give it the biggun when I'm standing in front of the lot of you. What goes around comes around and I may speak with a Cockney accent (which I'm bloody proud of!) but I am not stupid, so don't treat me like I am. There's been more skullduggery than any of you can ever imagine, so don't presume to know it all because none of you know anything. Over to you lot. Bring it on. Nasty little people enjoying other people's misfortune. I'm grateful I was brought up better than that.

I don’t do threats and I don’t do smirking at others discomfort. I don’t care what your accent is or what your background is or whether you’ve got a chip on your shoulder about sailors (who you assume are all middle class men) on a yachting forum offering their opinions and advice.

Here’s a truth: when you’re in trouble ranting and raving and swearing is not productive. No excuses.

I think most people completely understand the depth of your feeling, but founding a business doesn’t grant you special status. If an injustice has been done there are more persuasive and better ways of fighting a cause than firing off insults to anyone who dares to criticise you.

There are some good people on these forums. Many of them are very successful in business or in their professional life. Many of them have hands on direct experience of the issues you are facing. Some are lawyers and some are developers. May I suggest that a wise person would listen carefully to one or two things that are said. Even the uncomfortable things...?

I generally find that people who make mistakes often bluster and rant in frustration at the foolish thing they’ve done. I hope that’s not the case here but you’re not helping yourself with your attitude.

And my cahoneys are quite big enough to say that or anything else I’ve posted to your face thank you.

 

[maby]

"Pass the popcorn"?

And there we have it. What a callous attitude.

My situation is of course nothing more than a mildly entertaining scenario for you, but good, honest people's lives have been obliterated and their lifes' work unlawfully hijacked and stolen, and insensitive comments like that (along with several others from unpleasant, rude and downright nasty individuals on this thread) are the reason why I feel no obligation to provide you with any further information.

Besides, there remains an ongoing legal process which naturally precludes me from sharing finer details. It would also be foolish to 'show one's hand' to persons unknown, especially to those whose only interest is from a voyeuristic perspective, so I'm afraid you'll all just have to find something else to amuse you.

I think many of us do have some sympathy with you in your current situation, ma'am! We are just saying that we don't think you have played it very well. You appear to have had a lot of notice of this event, and it would seem that you don't have any great prospect of winning - although you can certainly drag the process out. Leases do expire and you have very limited ability to defy the land owner - the alternative which does provide security is freehold, but that is, of course, a lot more expensive.Under the circumstances, I would think that your only hope would have been to develop some public support, but allowing that video to be circulated is not going to win you any sympathy with the kind of people you need on your side.

 

[maby]

...

But if the redevelopment is not supposed to start for two years, why clear the existing businesses off now?

Because experience shows that it can take a long time to enforce court rulings in some cases.

 

[JumbleDuck]

... unpleasant, rude and downright nasty individuals on this thread ...

... Morons dissing me ... a jumped-up little pr*ck from the GLA ... hadn't even cleaned my teeth or had chance to wipe my arse properly ... You're like a load of vultures. ... Well I'll bet my tits I've got bigger balls than any of you.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Because experience shows that it can take a long time to enforce court rulings in some cases.

Fair enough. I gather that in this case the ruling was in February, so it has clearly taken quite a while already.

 

[maby]

Fair enough. I gather that in this case the ruling was in February, so it has clearly taken quite a while already.

Exactly. As I said above, we have let tenants stay on beyond the end of their lease, knowing that we will eventually want the property empty - but they have been tenants who we trusted to be cooperative when the time to leave eventually arrived.

 

[Blue Sunray]

:encouragement:

I still think that the Police Officer was a model of calmness and restraint.