Defamation

[Jeff Gaines]

I have received an email from the MD of the company which is either my
landlord or my landlord's managing agent, it doesn't seem to know and
despite a legal requirement to advise me when asked has failed to do so. I
hold a 150 year lease on the house, 110 years to run.

The email was copied to 5 staff of said company and contains an allegation
that I owe it a substantial sum in service fees which I dispute.

I am Secretary of our residents' association and the MD has asked me to
pass the email to Members so they realise I am an inappropriate person to
hold that post ( he hates residents' associations and has said so many
times despite our legal right to have one).

As you can probably see I don't have a terribly good relationship with
this man.

I am concerned about passing it on because IF I have a claim for
defamation I will have added to the defamation myself by publishing the
document to others. Any thoughts on that? I am inclined to tell him that
if he wishes to publish such remarks about me he should take legal advice
before so doing.

I appreciate all the ins and outs of defamation claims, I am just
interested in the possible impact of my publishing a defamatory remark
made by another person.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Those are my principles – and if you don’t like them, well, I have others.
(Groucho Marx)

[David McNeish]

On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 16:55:01 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> I am Secretary of our residents' association and the MD has asked me to
> pass the email to Members so they realise I am an inappropriate person to
> hold that post
>

> I am concerned about passing it on because IF I have a claim for
> defamation I will have added to the defamation myself by publishing the
> document to others.
>

> I appreciate all the ins and outs of defamation claims, I am just
> interested in the possible impact of my publishing a defamatory remark
> made by another person.

Well, I wouldn't have thought you could claim for any loss caused by you
choosing to distribute the libellous claim. I can't see it would otherwise make
any difference to whatever claim you might already have. And I can't see you
have a claim if the company hasn't otherwise told any third parties about the
fact that they believe you owe them money.

[JNugent]

To whom, other than yourself, has the alleged defamatory matter been
published so far?

Do the explicit or implicit terms of the office of Chairman oblige you
to circulate the members with all correspondence received by the
Association? I imagine that they might.

More to the point, was the correspondence addressed to you personally or
in your capacity as Chairman of the RA?

[GB]

It would not make sense to send this email to members. If you do so, in
the expectation that members won't believe the email, then you are
shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to winning a defamation
claim. If you publish it yourself, you cannot hold the author of the
email responsible for something you have chosen to publish.

Why don't you and the other leaseholders take over management of the
block, btw?

[Jon Ribbens]

Indeed. A message sent only to yourself is not libellous, and I don't
see how you could sue someone else for an email you choose to send
yourself. I'd just refuse to forward the email and point out that it
would presumably be both defamation and breach of privacy if the
person were to send it to others themselves.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 12/09/2021 in message <xn0n2sm0t...@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:

[snipped]


Many thanks for all the replies :-)

The email was addressed to me personally and copied to 5 members of the
"landlord's" staff.
I thought Members of the Residents' Association were entitled to ask for
copies of correspondence between the Committee and the "landlord" but I
can't now find that in the constitution, anyway there is no requirement to
circulate it and this was private correspondence.
We would love to take over the management of this place, or buy the
freehold, but it's 19 houses and 5 flats so waiting for the law to change
:-(

Thanks again!

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

[JNugent]

On 13/09/2021 09:39 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 12/09/2021 in message <xn0n2sm0t...@news.individual.net> Jeff
> Gaines wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
>
> Many thanks for all the replies :-)
>
> The email was addressed to me personally and copied to 5 members of the
> "landlord's" staff.

If the content is defamatory, it has been published.

[GB]

On 13/09/2021 09:39, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> We would love to take over the management of this place, or buy the
> freehold, but it's 19 houses and 5 flats so waiting for the law to
> change :-(

Can you exercise RTM for the 5 flats?

https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/right-manage/#3


>
> Thanks again!
>

[Jeff Gaines]

I did that at another flat I own, the eight shareholders have agreed on
nothing since we did it and now rarely speak to each other!

This is a retirement development, it's quite hard to get people interested
in anything relating to managing, most just want a simple life. If the law
changes it might be better as there are more houses.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent
life are pointing away from Earth?

[tim...]

"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0n2ugm...@news.individual.net...

> On 13/09/2021 in message <sho3ed$etd$1...@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
>
>>On 13/09/2021 09:39, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>>We would love to take over the management of this place, or buy the
>>>freehold, but it's 19 houses and 5 flats so waiting for the law to
>>>change :-(
>>
>>Can you exercise RTM for the 5 flats?
>>
>>https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/right-manage/#3
>
> I did that at another flat I own, the eight shareholders have agreed on
> nothing since we did it and now rarely speak to each other!

Having an RTM is never going to change the fact that some people will want
the property to look in pristine condition and are prepared to spend as much
as necessary to get that

and that some people will want to spend as little as possible even if that
means that the property looks like a slum

the latter are particular prevalent in a retirement property, amongst people
who have limited funds to spend on their day to day needs, and no further
interest in the capital value of the property.

The best that you can hope for is to manage the property in a cost effective
way for the things that you do agree on, instead of getting ripped off by
the third party doing it.

> This is a retirement development, it's quite hard to get people interested
> in anything relating to managing, most just want a simple life.

most want the things that *must* be done to be done efficiently

there's an ever increasing list of health and safety requirements impose
upon blocks that now have to be done, regards of the tenant in number 17
trying to veto it. (random choice of number, just in case my neighbours
have identified be)

tim

[newshound]

Good arguments for living in a house rather than a flat! In Holland
(probably much of Europe, for all I know) most blocks of retirement
flats are owned by insurance companies and/or pension funds, so that the
right commercial decisions are made centrally, giving the residents an
easy life.

[tim...]

"newshound" <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> wrote in message
news:IeidnSiwl4e8ZN_8...@brightview.co.uk...

I hate having a garden to look after

trying to find a house with no responsibility for a garden restricts your
supply considerably.

and much of what is available are in "gated" communities who have the same
management issues as flats, with even fewer of the remedies (RTM isn't an
enforceable right, for example)

> In Holland (probably much of Europe, for all I know) most blocks of
> retirement flats are owned by insurance companies and/or pension funds, so
> that the right commercial decisions are made centrally, giving the
> residents an easy life.

but who picks up the cost?

You'll find many (UK) leases include a clause that internal/external
redecoration should be done every 5 years.

Yet when residents who have input into the process of running a block look
at the state of the current decoration, it is usually still very serviceable
at 5 years and a pragmatic decision to delay for another 2, 3 or even 5
years is made.

If some anonymous body (who aren't actually picking up the bill) are running
the block they are quite likely to say: "the lease says it must be done, so
it must be done - here's the bill!"

When requiring scaffolding this redecoration can be a considerable expense.
(BTDTGTTS - FTAOD, after the pragmatic delay)

tim

[newshound]

I only really know about Holland, but there I believe it is often if not
usually part of your "health insurance", often either part of employment
packages or funded by subscription through your working life. The point
is, the owners are large organisations (e.g. Co-op) with a national
reputation to maintain, and the incentive to do appropriate maintenance
on their asset while providing a well-defined service. Obviously, at the
end of the day the customer is paying, but they are service
organisations rather than owners of capital assets seeking to maximise
their total gain.