The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby Sudynim » Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:39 pm

When Liaquat Ali’s next door neighbour complained that his wheelie bin was blocking the narrow alleyway between their homes, he agreed to move it. But its new position at a wider point of the shared access route prompted a solicitor’s letter stating it was still causing problems. The dispute developed into a bitter feud between Mr Ali, 47, and neighbour Iqbal Suleman, which ended in a court ruling that neither homeowner could keep a bin there. But they still ‘refuse’ to see eye-to-eye after Mr Ali was ordered to pay both of their legal bills, totalling almost £40,000.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257358/

A sobering example for anyone embarking upon a dispute. If a claim is unreasonable, or the claimant pursues it in an unreasonable way, there is the potential for a very hefty bill.
Sudynim
 
Posts: 2242
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:31 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby Anthony Westoby » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:15 am

Ah the joys of a shared driveway. Now Now, children, wonder which Lawyers benifited from the public purse on this one?
It should never have been allowed to go to court in the first place.

TonyW,
Anthony Westoby
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:23 pm

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby hzatph » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:44 pm

They should have come here instead of court!
hzatph
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:37 am

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby Lee Adams » Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:44 pm

The lawyer in question who is asking for £40,000 despite only submitting 40 pages of "evidence" is LYONS DAVIDSON, based in Bristol! Anyone heard of them!

If there any doubts just Google "Lyons Davidson" or "Daily Mail battle of the wheelie bins" or "Daily Mail Liaquat Ali"

OR any combination of the above you want and you can confirm for yourself.
BTW here are the best rated comments:-

I see the problem here, greedy lawyers. Bundle them (lawyers) into the wheelie bins.
- Danger Mouse, Manchester UK, 5/1/2013 1:08
Click to rate Rating 1996

He decided to speak out about the dispute after learning to his horror that Mr Suleman¿s lawyers were demanding £36,370. Mr Suleman has refused to comment. =============================================== Mr. Ali should challenge the costs claim. I vaguely recall a rule that costs claimed must be proportionate to the case and the issues, and in my view there is no way that over £35,000 worth of costs for one party in such a silly dispute can be justifiable.
- Trevor, Ipswich, United Kingdom, 5/1/2013 0:53
Click to rate Rating 1776

I have never heard anything so pathetic in my entire life.
- bog off, bog off, 5/1/2013 1:08
Lee Adams
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:11 pm

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby Lee Adams » Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:45 pm

Oh yes that works out £40,000/ 40 pages of evidence, i.e. around £1,000 per page! Must be some lawyer!
Lee Adams
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:11 pm

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby Lee Adams » Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:50 pm

If you check the Solicitors From hell Website, the 40 pages of "evidence" which the Defendant posted appears to have nothing to do with their original claim of "substantial interference" caused by a wheelie bin.

The posting states:-

"the Claimants disproportionately provided witness statements totalling almost 50 pages mainly based on "facts" focusing on general gripes between neighbours, focusing on things such as torn rubbish bags in the alleyway, the Claimants now being concerned as to why our wheelie bins were not out on rubbish collection day, my wife pacing up and down the alleyway, my car horn being sounded, one of us waving pieces of paper from my car after school time thinking these papers were Court papers to threaten them with as well as other complaints such as finding a flower pot in the alleyway and even bizarrely to explain in detail how the Claimant drove his vehicle into his own gate because he was trying to avoid crashing into our wheelie bin and in doing so, his £25,000 BMW was badly scratched and he was seeking £622.00 in damages from us, we assume to equate to an interference with the alleyway! "

and so on.......

this gets more wacky as I read it! Read the whole story for yourselves!

How does a firm like that get a licence to operate by supporting such rubbish! In my humble opinion, they should be shut down!
Lee Adams
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:11 pm

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby withreason » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:22 pm

I was under the impression that the defendant was acting LIP, but the account on Solicitor's From Hell mentions a barrister.

http://www.solicitorsfromhell.net/index ... 22&Itemid=
withreason
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:54 pm

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby duvet » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:47 pm

Dangers of a ill thought out and rushed Tomlin Order!
duvet
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:52 am

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby despair » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:58 pm

It sounds to me that £4000 might be more like it

but we do not know how many months or pages of tripe Lyons Davidson had to deal with beforehand
despair
 
Posts: 16043
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:07 am

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby Roblewis » Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:33 pm

Barristers are expensive and if you create a situation where one becomes involved then be prepared for fees of up to £700 per hour. In addition a partner solicitor at £4-600 per hour and a solicitor at £2-300 per hour. Given that many hours are spent for each page read and digested and opinions written than £36k is quite achievable.

Sudynim is right - do not get tied into litigation if success is no better than 50:50 at worst or you have deep pockets. Most Insurance will refuse a claim at less than 60% certainty and reccomend settlement in some other way.

In my own case disbursements and solicitor+barrister costs have reached £43k and the court hearing is still 6 months away. I am just pleased that it is a conditional fee agreement with ATE insurance.
Roblewis
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby Lee Adams » Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:48 pm

Yes I think if there is a detailed assessment of the costs, then the conduct and integrity of all parties concerned will be carefully , the costs must be proportionate and reasonable in accordance to the issue at hand: check CPR Rule 44.5. Erm... £40K over a disputed position of a wheelie bin seems a little OTT.

I think any sane and reasonable judge would possibly see this as an grossly inflated and exaggerated bill and the Claimants and even their solicitors may get a slap on their wrists (to put it mildly) with costs sanctions and other penalties for wasting the Court's time as well as the Defendants time and money over such a petty thing as a WHEELIE BIN when I think no damages or even losses were even recovered by the Claimant! What a palaver over nothing!!!!!!!!!!

Check or Google:-
Lane v Shah [2004],
Wharton v Bancroft [2011],
Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal v Connell & Sharples (just to mention a few high profile cases)

I wonder what would happen if I parked my car in this solicitors parking lot using the wrong parking bay! Don't won't to contemplate what the bill would be if they want £40K over a wheelie bin! :wink:

PS. I have a friend who suffered at the hands of this solicitor (Lyons Davidson). He was eventually found not guilty, the case was thrown out and the other party paid him too! Hence my strong postings!
Lee Adams
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:11 pm

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby cloudyeyes » Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:05 pm

Lee Adams wrote:........ for wasting the Court's time as well as the Defendants time and money over such a petty thing as a WHEELIE BIN when I think no damages or even losses were even recovered by the Claimant! What a palaver over nothing!!!!!!!!!!


In the images in the press article, it's clear that one of the properties has a garage at the end of the driveway. If a vehicular ROW exists in favour of the garage owner and they can't exercise it because of obstructions placed by the neighbour, why is it a palaver over nothing? Court should always be a last resort but faced with an intransigent neighbour, once all other avenues are exhausted, how else is an owner to obtain relief?
cloudyeyes
 

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby withreason » Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:19 pm

cloudyeyes wrote:In the images in the press article, it's clear that one of the properties has a garage at the end of the driveway. If a vehicular ROW exists in favour of the garage owner and they can't exercise it because of obstructions placed by the neighbour, why is it a palaver over nothing? Court should always be a last resort but faced with an intransigent neighbour, once all other avenues are exhausted, how else is an owner to obtain relief?


The alleyway is shared with both owning half each, there would be equal rights to use it and both had a wheelie bin on it. The fact that one did not use it for vehicular access should not give exclusive rights to the other.

Furthermore the letter of claim outlined claims seeking "damages", "losses" as well as an "injunction" and an entry later on stating under some CPR rule, that we had to quote "identify our insurer" (yes over a wheelie bin) and all this despite the Claimant even leaving his own wheelie bins in the alleyway, even AFTER we agreed NOT to leave ours in the alleyway anymore: see photo of Claimants' wheelie bin in the alleyway dated 9th July 2012 around 07:33 AM: is that hypocrisy and double-standards or what! Also worst still these people allowed builders to park their vans in the alleyway too, morning, day and night (some photos taken as proof) and even having the affront to state the SHARED* driveway belonged to him by using the phrase "you're blocking MY drive" (all captured on recording too) as well as claims from his solicitor that the SHARED* driveway was RESERVED for their client!

*SHARED driveway: shared by both properties as confirmed by the Title Deeds and more importantly the Title Plans of both properties, filed and archived with HM Land Registry, showing clearly and unambiguously the boundary line going straight down the middle of the shared alleyway with each property owner having ownership of their respective half of the shared alleyway that separates both properties.


The Claimant also provided NO evidence to say how our wheelie bin caused this "substantial interference", nor, as far as we are aware, did he log any complaint to the authorities such as the Council, Citizens Advice Bureau and so on, to say how our wheelie bin blocked in his car, i.e. on the contrary, his own surveyor who we witnessed and photographed on the day of his visit said quote "there is no case here", a statement which is even backed up by our own photos (see attached sample of many we have as evidence) showed plenty of clearance between the bin and any vehicle passing it and even verified by our own solicitor!


http://www.solicitorsfromhell.net/index ... 22&Itemid=
withreason
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:54 pm

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby cloudyeyes » Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:06 pm

I did not say that anyone should have exclusive access. My question was addressed to the poster who claimed that blocking a ROW is a trivial matter that shouldn't go to court.
cloudyeyes
 

Re: The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins

Postby withreason » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:47 pm

I also don't know where the bins were placed and whether they interfere with vehicular access on both sides. It's not relevant to my question.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... court.html
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
withreason
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:54 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 
Next

Return to Rights of Way

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests