Subject: Flat 14, 14-16 Carroun Road
From: Ross Paterson <[email-masked]>
To: Katerina <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:52:47 +0000

Dear Katerina

I attach amended versions of the four documents you prepared.

It has to be said that my colleagues and I do not act in this way. Clients, regardless of how familiar they are with property and litigation, do not prepare letters and documents for us just to put on our firm’s letterhead and send off. You will not find many solicitors who would be willing to work for a client requiring this type of service.

I have acted for and have many aggressive clients. In my view, this case does not really require the level of aggression, which you want to show. This is case fundamentally about a water leak in a roof, which needs to be fixed. You are threatening to issue two small claims in the county court. This will then, no doubt, trigger the tenant into applying to the Tribunal to vary the lease - a third claim. The tenant is very likely to succeed in such a claim given the poorly drafted lease with no repairing obligations relating to the building. You could face a Tribunal costs order if you vigorously oppose any such application to vary the lease given that this is a necessary step, in the absence of an agreed deed of variation.

Instead, I would seek to negotiate with the tenant’s solicitor along the lines proposed in my email dated 17 November 2025:

“Without prejudice save as to costs

Current leak

  1.  An independent professional survey of the current leak issue is carried out by a building surveyor at a shared cost (50/50) between the parties to establish the cause of the current leak and propose remedial works;
  2.  A proper Section 20 consultation process is carried out by our client for the proposed remedial works;
  3.  The costs of the remedial works are shared 50/50 between the parties with your client paying his contribution upfront;
  4.  The remedial works are carried out;
  5.  A proper procedure is agreed in writing between the parties for reporting and dealing with future maintenance issues;
  6.  More fundamentally, a deed of variation to the lease is entered into by the parties, at your client’s cost, to make satisfactory provision for the repair and maintenance of the building and the recovery of these costs from your client through a service charge; and
  7.  Each party to pay their own legal costs, except in relation to point 6 above.”

That is not to say my approach is right and yours is wrong. People can have differing legal strategies but a solicitor and the client should work together.

Other points that spring to mind about your letters and notices include:

  *   My firm does not generally get involved in running claims in the small claims track. The track is designed so that parties do not need to instruct lawyers.

  *   The courts are not working well at the moment and are suffering from poor administration and long delays. Parties should be avoiding court currently rather than possibly being involved in three concurrent claims. You face the prospect of 18 months of legal hassle over a relatively minor matter (although I realise as the freeholder you are invested in the property).
  *   The legal costs involved in three court claims will be disproportionate to the size and complexity of this matter involving a past water leak, unauthorised repairs and a new water leak.
  *   It is going to be difficult for a building surveyor to show that the current leak is caused by certain works carried out 3-4 years ago to the roof, where you cannot be sure what works were carried out at the time.
  *   This survey will be important for the amount of damages awarded in any trespass claim. Damages for trespass based on the damage to the roof caused by the trespassing works in 2022 will be more than the damages compensating for a builder being on the roof for a day or two without consent, which will be minimal.
  *   Expert evidence in a small claim is rare and needs the permission of the court. The expert would most probably be appointed as a single joint expert so he would not be your expert and his main duty would not be to you but to the court. In the small claims track, a costs award of only £750 per party can be made in relation to expert evidence. This will not cover the cost of a building surveyor’s report so you would have to pay a share of the building surveyor’s fees even if you won at the small claims final hearing.
  *   The issue about whether you were told by the tenant about the leak in March 2021 or 2022 is not worth getting too exercised about and a judge will not be too concerned by it either.
  *   If you are writing a letter in accordance with the pre-action protocol for debt claims, you should give more than 14 days for a response as the protocol gives 30 days for a response.
  *   Your suggested total damages sum for the trespass claim of £9,500 is on the high side.
  *   Have you served the annual ground rent notices (two per year) on the tenant in accordance with s166 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002? If not, you need to do this first and wait for the notices to expire as the ground rent will not be due and owing otherwise.
  *   Similarly, have you served valid service charge demands with the tenant’s summary of rights and obligations on the tenant in relation to the insurance premium payment and the pipe works? If not, you will have to serve valid service charge demands as these service charges will not be due and owing otherwise.
  *   A landlord should not really be threatening to forfeit a lease over arrears of a maximum of £2,705.

  *   A landlord cannot seek interest under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 against a residential tenant as this is not a commercial business situation.

It is clear that you are familiar with litigation and know your way around a lease. At this point, you have to decide whether you want to proceed on your own or find another solicitor or accept that I will not agree with your approach but could possibly still do the work for you.

Given the difference of opinion here, I think I should stop acting for you.

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.