Subject: RE: 14-16 Carroun Road, London SW8 1JT (Clarification on Tribunal Perspective)
From: Ross Paterson <[email-masked]>
To: Katerina Perepech <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 16:23:07 +0000

Dear Katerina

Are you in a position to give me your instructions after reviewing matters?

I should respond to Wright Hassall’s letter of 14 November shortly.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Ross Paterson
(Solicitor)

www.benchmark-solicitors.co.uk<http://www.benchmark-solicitors.co.uk/>
The Gate House
Cliffords Inn Passage
London
EC4A 1BL

Tel: 02034 054540
Dir: 02034 054541
Mob: 07980 869225

Benchmark Solicitors LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership, registered in England and Wales, registered number OC372424, registered office The Gate House, Cliffords Inn Passage, London EC4A 1BL. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under registration number 567492. A list of the members’ names and their professional qualifications is available for inspection at the above office.

The contents of this email and any attachments are intended for the attention and use of only the addressee(s) named above and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please:1)do not disclose or communicate the contents to any other person;2)do not make any copies;3)inform by reply email that the email has been sent to you in error; and4)delete the email from your computer system.

It is your responsibility to ensure that all emails which you receive from Benchmark Solicitors LLP are genuine before relying on anything contained within them. Benchmark Solicitors LLP does not accept any responsibility or liability for any malicious or fraudulent email purportedly sent by the firm.

From: Katerina Perepech <[email-masked]>
Sent: 01 December 2025 13:09
To: Ross Paterson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 14-16 Carroun Road, London SW8 1JT (Clarification on Tribunal Perspective)

Dear Ross,

Thank you for your email. I’m reviewing everything carefully, and before giving further instructions I would like to consider the strategic implications, including costs and long-term consequences of each route.

I will come back to you shortly once I have finalised how I wish to proceed.

Kind regards,

Katerina

On 26 Nov 2025, at 14:03, Ross Paterson <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Dear Katerina

Thank you for your email yesterday. In answer to your further questions:

First query

I attach your previous solicitors’ letter to Mr Sarpong dated 14 June 2023. The simple answer to your query is that this letter was an open letter, not a without prejudice letter. The letter was not clearly marked at the start “Without prejudice” or “Without prejudice save as to costs” and did not make any settlement offer (which is the hallmark of a without prejudice letter). This is why the tenant can rely on it now.

Any without prejudice letter I write, on your behalf, making a settlement offer will be privileged and hidden from the Tribunal.
Second query

The situation where the parties negotiate on a without prejudice basis but cannot settle and then a court/Tribunal claim follows is common and is nothing to be concerned about. These days any court will expect the parties to negotiate in some way before a claim/application is issued. If we participate in without prejudice correspondence, then we can tell the court (if need be) that we have tried to settle (without referring to the terms) but to no avail.

Third query

If you apply to the Tribunal to vary the lease terms (which you can do), this will lead to months of Tribunal work and result in a hearing where the Tribunal judge will set the terms of the lease variation.

If you offer to enter into a deed of variation, you can propose the terms you want to the tenant and lead the negotiations. This is why I would suggest this route first. It will be cheaper and quicker.

The tenant’s breaches won’t come into play in any application to vary the lease. The Tribunal will just be concerned with (1) whether the application meets the criteria for such an application to vary (it does) and (2) do the proposed terms fix the problem. It is a narrow type of application and will not involve past consideration of breaches.

I hope this helps.

I’m off on Friday, by the way.

Regards

Ross Paterson
(Solicitor)

www.benchmark-solicitors.co.uk<http://www.benchmark-solicitors.co.uk/>
The Gate House
Cliffords Inn Passage
London
EC4A 1BL

Tel: 02034 054540
Dir: 02034 054541
Mob: 07980 869225

Benchmark Solicitors LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership, registered in England and Wales, registered number OC372424, registered office The Gate House, Cliffords Inn Passage, London EC4A 1BL. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under registration number 567492. A list of the members’ names and their professional qualifications is available for inspection at the above office.

The contents of this email and any attachments are intended for the attention and use of only the addressee(s) named above and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please:1)do not disclose or communicate the contents to any other person;2)do not make any copies;3)inform by reply email that the email has been sent to you in error; and4)delete the email from your computer system.

It is your responsibility to ensure that all emails which you receive from Benchmark Solicitors LLP are genuine before relying on anything contained within them. Benchmark Solicitors LLP does not accept any responsibility or liability for any malicious or fraudulent email purportedly sent by the firm.

From: Katerina Perepech <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Sent: 25 November 2025 17:34
To: Ross Paterson <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: 14-16 Carroun Road, London SW8 1JT (Clarification on Tribunal Perspective)

Dear Ross,

Thank you for your reply I have much clearer understanding of situation now.

I hope you don’t mind, but I would be grateful for a further clarification on my 3 questions below, as I am trying to fully understand the strategic implications before deciding on the next step.

1. The practical effect of making a without-prejudice offer now

You mentioned in your latest email that any WP proposal I make “cannot be referred to” in a subsequent Tribunal application. I understand this in the technical, evidential sense.

However, I am still concerned about the strategic consequence. In earlier correspondence, you explained that my previous solicitor’s without-prejudice letter caused a real problem. In your email of 3 November 2025, you wrote:

“We have to be a bit careful about being too gung-ho over the poorly drafted lease.

Your previous solicitor’s letter dated 14 June 2023… clearly stated that your company accepted responsibility for the repair of the retained parts. Your solicitor at the time had authority to bind you through the wording of this letter.”

This has confused me.

If my previous WP letter (which was never accepted and included a 50/50 proposal) has “weakened my position”, then I struggle to understand why a new WP proposal made now would not create a similar strategic vulnerability—regardless of whether the Tribunal can technically rely on WP material.

Could you please explain the distinction between the two situations, and why you consider a new WP proposal safe, whereas the earlier one is strategically harmful?

This is very important for me to understand before agreeing to take that route.

2. How would I be protected if the tenant still decides to apply to the Tribunal after a WP offer?

From past experience, any attempt at cooperation tends to embolden the tenant rather than de-escalate matters. Even if he cannot show the WP letter inside the Tribunal, he may still use my willingness to negotiate as further justification to pursue the application in the first place.

Could you please advise how my position would be protected if we make a WP proposal, he rejects it (highly likely), and then proceeds to the Tribunal anyway?

This is the central question I feel I still do not fully understand.

3. Should I consider applying to the Tribunal myself?

Since my goal is to resolve this situation permanently and prevent recurring disputes, I would also appreciate your professional view on whether I should consider being the one to initiate the Tribunal process.

If I were to present evidence of the tenant’s multiple breaches and ask the Tribunal to set out a clear service-charge structure based on flat size (60/40 or even 70/30, given the disparity), would doing so help me:

  1.  resolve the issue definitively
  2.  prevent ongoing harassment
  3.  avoid being repeatedly threatened
  4.  and secure a fair cost allocation for the long term

I am not saying I want to take this step lightly, but given the tenant’s behaviour and the never-ending conflict, I am wondering whether a proactive approach might ultimately work more in my favour.

I would welcome your honest opinion on this point.

Thank you again for your guidance. I appreciate your patience and your help in navigating this situation.

Kind regards,

Katerina Perepech

Director | KG Project Ltd

On 25 Nov 2025, at 13:36, Ross Paterson <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Dear Katerina

Thank you for your email today.

Yes, your understanding of the costs issue is broadly correct. However, if the Tribunal considers that you have acted unreasonably in defending an application for a variation to the lease then it could, at a stretch, make an order under rule 13 in relation to costs. The Tribunal Judge retains some discretion here.

A variation to this lease is not necessarily something that would harm you. It is just that the whole variation Tribunal process will cost a landlord more than agreeing to a deed of variation.

Any without prejudice proposal cannot be referred to in any subsequent Tribunal application by the tenant – it is privileged. This is the point about without prejudice offers.

Regards

<Letter SA Law to Mr Sarpong 140623.PDF>