Wright Hassall LLP Correspondence

1-3. Introduction:

• Acting for Albert Sarpong, leasehold proprietor of Flat 14
• Lease dated 8.11.13 between KG Project Limited, 14-16 Carroun Road (Management) Limited, and Charles Willis
• Copy sent to SA Law out of courtesy - requests confirmation if KG Project still instructing them

4-8. The Leak:

• KG Project failed to respond to Al's emails dated 19.7.25 and 23.7.25
• Leak impacting Al's Property - emanating from outside the demise
• Photographs enclosed showing leak entering from corner of ceiling where eastern wall meets ceiling
• Water trickles down wall onto skirting board
• Al is mitigating damage using towels and bucket during heavy rain

9-10. Lease Interpretation - THE KEY ARGUMENT:

• Notes that 14-16 Carroun Road ("the Building") is NOT demised to Al - only specific aspects of the Property as defined in the Lease and Schedule 1
• CITES SA LAW LETTER: "It is noted that your solicitor's letter to our client dated 14.6.23 accepts that it is your responsibility to keep in good repair and to maintain the Building. As such, it is your responsibility to investigate the leaks and deal with them to the extent that the Building is causing these issues."

11-12. Insurance Query:

• Disappointing that Al has received no update in response to his emails
• Requests confirmation whether KG Project has explored making an insurance claim pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 of the Lease
• Asks what the insurer has informed regarding the leak

13-14. Next Steps - 21 DAY DEADLINE:

• Within 21 days, expects written confirmation of:
  • a. Proposals for addressing the leak
  • b. Information from the insurer as to whether the policy will cover the damage
• Threat: "In the absence of a response within 21 days, our client will have to consider his options for further action"
• Hopes to engage with KG Project about how to address the leak prior to winter weather

Implied Term (Points 2-3):

• "As insinuated by your letter, the courts do have an ability to imply terms into a lease. It is not an unarguable point."
• However, Al appreciates this is an "unnecessary preliminary issue" best avoided given context
• Encourages Benchmark to seek clarifications on instructions before asserting this point

Variation of Lease (Points 4-5):

• Section 35(2)(a) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987: Al is "at liberty" to apply to vary the Lease
• Tribunal has jurisdiction to amend the Lease to deal with "the unsatisfactory provision of the absence of the covenant for your client to maintain the Building"
• Al would rather avoid the expense and protracted nature of such proceedings - "only incur such costs as a last resort"

Estoppel Argument (Points 6-7):

• Al "can make out a case" that he acted on a clear representation made by KG Project's instructed solicitor
• Placed reliance on it by NOT taking matters into his own hands via a self-help remedy
• Now suffering detriment of a leak that KG Project is "unconscionably refusing to deal with, having previously asserted that it was their responsibility"
• KG Project is a corporate entity who can afford and appreciate legal advice - "Your letter is therefore too quick to dismiss an estoppel"

Pre-action Admission (Points 8-10):

• Benchmark failed to explain WHY KG Project instructed SA Law to concede responsibility
• "Courts would be slow to permit your client to reengage in relation to the concession made over the maintenance"
• Notes Benchmark's letter "stops short of stating the previous advice received was wrong"
• Appears to insinuate advice "could possibly be correct" - KG Project now asserts alternative position to "renege from its previous position"
• Threat: Al will NOT consent to withdraw the previous position; reserves right to bring application under CPR 14.1(2)(a)
• "The previous position was pragmatic, with the benefit of legal advice and the step back from this position would appear to be vexatious in nature"
• Al would be "severely prejudiced if your client is allowed to renege on its previous admission"

Common Sense Arguments (Points 11-14):

• KG Project owns the OTHER flat in the Building - reason enough to revert to SA Law's advice
• If KG Project was a freeholder with no other interest in a 999-year lease, attempting to renege might be sympathised with - but this is not the case
• Stance of not addressing the problem but also preventing Al from addressing it is "bemusing"
• "Your letter offers no solution whatsoever"
• Various lease obligations necessitate contact between the parties
• Solicitors' duty to consider clients' interests - "not being served by putting up technical barriers to resolution"
• If leak is left, it will impact value of BOTH properties

Previous Roof Works 2022 (Points 15-17):

• Benchmark's assertion that Al's 2022 works "exacerbated the issue" is "baseless"
• Renders KG Project's threat for loss "hollow" - no evidence provided
• Fact that Al had no cause to report leaks until now "demonstrates that those works presented a short-term solution while your client refused to engage with its responsibilities"
• If works would have caused issues, why no complaint in 2023 or 2024?
• 2022 roof works were never presented as a long-term solution
• Al made KG Project aware of issues in March 2021 - KG Project said it would consider and revert. No response received.
• Al carried out short-term solution to address the issue
• "KG Project has benefited from our client's diligence without making payment"
• Hard to see how any alleged trespass could outweigh KG Project's failure to address the issue first
• Photograph enclosed showing state of roof PRIOR to 2022 works

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: The March 2021 Notification Claim is MISLEADING

Wright Hassall asserts (Point 16): "Al made KG Project aware of issues in March 2021" to suggest landlord neglect. The actual emails tell a very different story:

View Full Email Analysis in Katerina-Al Timeline →

Insurance (Points 18-20):

• Benchmark asserts leak is not an insured risk - "without your client's insurer assessing that is not your place to shut down this avenue"
• Numerous storms this year - insurer may consider damage as storm damage (an Insured Risk under Lease)
• Requests disclosure of insurance policy and schedule - Al entitled under paragraph 2.3 of Schedule 6 of the Lease
• Encloses Al's Section 30A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 request

Next Steps (Points 21-23):

• Insurance Deadline: Severity of failing to respond within 21 days - risk of a SUMMARY OFFENCE
• Expects response to full letter within 21 days - especially given extra time afforded to receive advice from second firm of solicitors
• Sensible for KG Project to reconsider position on retracting previous acceptance
• Costs Threat: Al will rely on this letter when costs arise and seek indemnity costs or costs under Rule 13 if Tribunal proceedings
• Al will consider any proposals for Alternative Dispute Resolution

Complaints About Benchmark's Response:

• Benchmark's letter dated 10.12.25 "only appears to deal with paragraph 20" of WH's 14.11.25 letter
• Asks: "When does your client propose to instruct you to respond to the rest of the content of the letter dated 14.11.25?"

Note: Paragraph 20 of the 14.11.25 letter was the Section 30A insurance request - Benchmark apparently only responded to this single point.

Insurance Cover Query:

• "It appears that the insurance may have storm and escape of water cover, as suspected at paragraph 18 of our letter dated 14.11.25"
• Asks KG Project to disclose evidence of whether this cover has been explored with the insurer

14-DAY DEADLINE & COURT THREAT:

"Please respond within 14 days"

"In the absence of a response, we will take our client's instructions on proceedings to breach the impasse"

"...and invite the Court to assess all the relevant correspondence when arriving at a decision on costs."