Katerina ↔ Ross Paterson (Benchmark Solicitors)

Key Points - First Contact with Benchmark Solicitors:

• Katerina reaches out to Ross (referred by Muneeb Malida)
• Explains leasehold/freehold dispute at 14-16 Carroun Road
• Notes Wright Hassall letter received with 21-day deadline (by ~24 Oct)
• Issues: water ingress, unauthorised roof works by leaseholder, cost-sharing dispute, Section 20 consultation, insurance
• Requests: conflict check, strategy call, terms of engagement

Key Points:

• Ross confirms he can act for KG Project Ltd
• Suggests initial call at 10:30am on Oct 17
• Shares direct phone number: 020 3405 4541

Key Points:

• Following initial call, Ross sends client care letter for KG Project Ltd
• Fee structure: Hourly rate plus VAT and disbursements
• Onboarding payment: £750 on account required
• Requested client ID documents (passport/driving licence, bank statement)
• Asked for Wright Hassall correspondence, previous documents, surveys/invoices
• Promised to download Land Registry documents
• Plan: Write to Wright Hassall for more time, then prepare draft letters

Key Points:

• £750 onboarding fee paid
• Required identification documents provided
• Case documentation shared
• Wright Hassall correspondence forwarded

Key Points - Ross's Proposed Settlement Approach:

• Proposed "without prejudice save as to costs" negotiation
• Suggested 50/50 shared cost for independent survey
• Section 20 consultation for remedial works
• 50/50 cost sharing for repairs with tenant paying upfront
• Deed of variation to lease (at tenant's cost)
• Each party to pay own legal costs

Key Points - Strategic Questions Before Proceeding:

1. WP Offer Risk: If previous WP letter "weakened position", why wouldn't a new WP proposal create similar vulnerability?
2. Protection After WP: How would Katerina be protected if tenant rejects WP offer and proceeds to Tribunal anyway?
3. Proactive Tribunal Application: Should Katerina consider applying to Tribunal herself to resolve issues definitively and secure fair cost allocation (60/40 or 70/30 based on flat size)?

Key Points - Ross's Responses:

• First query: Clarified previous solicitor's letter was "open" not "without prejudice" - had no settlement offer so can be relied upon by tenant
• Second query: WP correspondence is common before court - can tell court tried to settle without revealing terms
• Third query: If Katerina applies to vary lease at Tribunal, it costs more than agreeing a deed of variation; suggests offering deed of variation first to lead negotiations
• Tenant's breaches "won't come into play" in lease variation application - Tribunal only considers if criteria met and if proposed terms fix problem

Key Points:

• Katerina reviewing everything carefully
• Wants to consider strategic implications, costs, and long-term consequences
• Will provide further instructions once decision finalised

Key Points:

• Ross asks if Katerina is in position to give instructions after reviewing matters
• Notes he should respond to Wright Hassall's letter of 14 November shortly
• Awaiting decision on how to proceed

Key Points:

• Ross sends letter to opposing solicitors on behalf of KG Project Ltd
• Initial response to Wright Hassall's November correspondence
• Wright Hassall responds on 9 January 2026 requesting more substantive response

Key Points:

• Ross sends interim bill dated 12 December 2025
• Amount: £1,392 (including VAT)
• Invoice 2739 attached
• Bank account details provided for payment

Key Points:

• Katerina confirms payment of £1,392 by bank transfer
• Used invoice number as payment reference
• Ross acknowledges receipt same day

Key Points:

• Katerina drafts letter to Wright Hassall/opposing party
• Includes Subject Access Request under UK GDPR
• Letter requires 30-day response
• Proposes using data protection laws as part of strategy

Key Points - First Major Disagreement:

• Katerina proposed using GDPR and DPA 2018 s.45 to challenge data issues
• Ross rejected this approach entirely

Key Points:

• Wright Hassall (opposing solicitors) response received
• Response forwarded to Katerina for review
• Opposing party maintaining their position on repairs and costs

Key Points - Client's Clear Instructions:

• "We are going on the offensive" - clear strategic direction
• Prepared comprehensive documentation package:

1. Service Charge Demand - for insurance and maintenance costs
2. Letter Before Action - formal pre-litigation notice
3. Notice of Inspection - to assess property condition
4. Letter to Wright Hassall - responding to their claims

Client's stated objectives:

• Demand payment of arrears owed
• Issue formal claim for trespass and breach of covenant
• Challenge the false March 2021 notification claim
• Intent to issue County Court proceedings if necessary

Key Points - Solicitor Refusing Client Instructions:

CRITICAL EMAIL - Complete Breakdown of Solicitor-Client Relationship:

Ross's Key Statements:

Ross's Objections to Client's Approach:

• Claims client cannot prepare legal documents for solicitor to send
• Characterises case as "just about a water leak" (ignoring multiple issues)
• Warns of "18 months of legal hassle"
• Says costs would be "disproportionate"
• Questions whether s166 ground rent notices were served
• Questions whether valid service charge demands were served
• Says landlord shouldn't threaten forfeiture over £2,705 arrears
• Denies Late Payment of Commercial Debts Act applies