Families face £32k bill in legal row over grass-cutting
‘We must pay in perpetuity’
IT began as a row over monthly fees charged for grass cutting.
But a legal challenge mounted by two homeowners against a factoring firm backfired, leaving them potentially facing a bill of £31,700.
John Walsh and Philip Harrison said they had no idea there was an annual charge for mowing public areas when they bought their homes.
They challenged the fees – £1,300 and £500 respectively – and won their case at a small claims court.
However, Glasgow-based factoring company Greenbelt then took the case to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh and won, leaving the men potentially liable for the firm’s £31,700 legal expenses.
Mr Walsh bought his property in Birkdale Place, in the Ardler area of Dundee, in 2008. Mr Harrison purchased his home six years later.
Greenbelt owns the communal areas of land around the estate and it bills homeowners for their maintenance.
Both men refused to pay their annual fees and were taken to the small claims court in 2016 by the factoring firm. After two years, they successfully argued Greenbelt was operating a ‘monopoly’. They won their case and were awarded £150 each in expenses.
However, Greenbelt took the case to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the sheriff had erred in law.
It ordered the two men to pay the £1,300 and £500 fees and disallowed the £150 expenses awarded to them, ordering the pair to pay this money to Greenbelt instead.
But the court also ruled that the men were liable for the company’s legal expenses. Appeal judges further sanctioned the employment of senior and junior counsel, meaning Mr Walsh and Mr Harrison are both liable for Greenbelt’s legal fees.
As the firm employed a QC for the appeal court hearing, the company’s total legal bill came to £31,700.
The two families have set up a crowdfunding page in an attempt to meet the cost of Greenbelt’s legal fees. Mr Walsh said: ‘We must pay in perpetuity if we choose to stay in our home, without any option to choose a new provider of services.’
A spokesman for Greenbelt said it asked for ‘acceptable offers’ of payment to be made.
He added: ‘We will continue to work with all parties to reach an amicable conclusion.’
Last night, Mr Harrison said: ‘We withheld payment of the fees after researching and coming to the conclusion that this maintenance contract was a monopoly and was illegal.
‘Plus, the standard of maintenance was substandard in our view. This is the correct way to dispute this burden, according to the Land Tribunal for Scotland. We were also aware that the expenses were capped in small claims to £150.
‘We are now in discussions with Greenbelt regarding these expenses. They have intimated in writing that they will accept no less than 90 per cent of the total amount asked for (£28,000) in order to prevent them lodging this with the court for taxation.’
Greenbelt has a community choice policy which states residents must obtain agreement of two-thirds of homeowners on the estate, purchase the land, set up a properly constituted body to oversee it and obtain permission from the local authority. A Greenbelt spokesman said: ‘The original small claims action we raised, to which this relates, saw the sheriff find in our favour on both the service provided and reasonableness of charges applied to customers, but incorrectly find a “monopoly”.
‘This incorrect finding left us no alternative but to appeal.
‘Following the court’s judgment that Greenbelt does not operate a monopoly, we again underline customers have the option to end the arrangement and take on all obligations.
‘This is outlined in their written statement of services, as part of the regulatory requirements of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act of 2011.’