Landlords Breach And Costs

Summary

The applicant disputes a £11,000 cost order linked to a peaceful protest against a landlords breach of the Tomlin Agreement. The protest was due to the landlords failure to address tenant concerns, causing distress to a vulnerable tenant. The tribunals decision overlooked the landlords non-compliance and the protests context, raising issues of procedural fairness and human rights violations. The applicant seeks to overturn the cost order and address breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act.

Full Conversation

Please review my draft to be concise for impact

Sure, ****! Please share your draft, and I'll help make it concise for impact.

*. The judge misunderstood our peaceful protest as an unreasonable defence in response to the landlord's ongoing failure to address our concerns and respond to our and ICO's communications over more than a year. (Exhibit *) *. The decision failed to consider the landlord's lack of response to our communications, a vital obligation of the Tomlin Agreement, precipitating our protest. This lack of response from the landlord was a significant factor that the Tribunal should have considered in determining the reasonableness of our actions. The landlord’s communication failure breached the Tomlin Agreement and incited the Applicant's protest. (Exhibit * ) *. In January *, the Applicant wrote to the Landlord's solicitor, offering to discuss the Applicant’s concerns, but the Landlord refused. (Exhibit *) *. The Landlord failed to comply with the Information Commissioner’s Office instructions to respond in full to the Applicant’s request to view CCTV footage following a threat of assault. (Exhibit *) *. Following this incident, the Police issued a police protection notice and referred the Applicant to victim support. (Exhibit *) *. The Applicants contacted victim support and other organisations for advice on harassment and stalking. (Exhibit *) *. The Applicant remedied the alleged breach of covenant on * January *, well before the first video conference on * April * and the Tribunal hearing on * June *. (Exhibit *) *. The Applicant’s protest was a direct response to the landlord’s failures to address the Applicant's concerns, causing significant distress to a vulnerable person suffering from Tourette’s Syndrome, Anxiety disorder, and asthma. (Exhibit *) *. The Tribunal failed to consider this adequately, unfairly influencing the cost decision without considering the significant distress caused to Mr **** and Mr Bell.

Sure, ****! Here’s a more concise version:
*. The judge misunderstood our peaceful protest as unreasonable, ignoring the landlord's year-long failure to address our concerns. (Exhibit *)
*. The decision overlooked the landlord's breach of the Tomlin Agreement by not responding to our communications, prompting our protest. (Exhibit *)
*. In January *, the Applicant's offer to discuss concerns was refused by the Landlord's solicitor. (Exhibit *)
*. The Landlord did not comply with the ICO's instructions to respond fully to our CCTV request after an assault threat. (Exhibit *)
*. Following this, Police issued a protection notice and referred the Applicant to victim support. (Exhibit *)
*. The Applicant sought advice from victim support and other organizations on harassment and stalking. (Exhibit *)
*. The Applicant remedied the covenant breach on * January *, before the video conference on * April * and the Tribunal hearing on * June *. (Exhibit *)
*. The protest was a response to the landlord’s failures, causing distress to a vulnerable person with Tourette’s Syndrome, Anxiety disorder, and asthma.

Unreasonable Conduct *. The Tribunal has used its powers under procedures Rules * * (*) (b) to award costs against the Applicants for defending proceedings. *. The First-tier Tribunal can award costs only if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings. *. The Tribunal has not considered the Landlord’s withholding of the Applicant's personal regarding breaches of the Tomlin Agreement or Data Protection Act. *. The Tribunal, by rule * * (*), gives effect to the overriding objective so that it deals with cases fairly and justly, including in ways proportionate to the case's importance, the complexity of issues, anticipated costs, and the resources of the parties and the tribunal. *. At the * June * Tribunal, the Landlord’s representative accepted that the Applicants (Mr. **** and Mr. Bell) are ‘litigants in person’ and, therefore, would not know, when interpreting clauses in leases, that there are absolute covenants, qualified covenants, and fully qualified covenants. Ms Zanelli, representing the Landlord, explained that: *. “The difference between absolute and qualified and fully qualified is that qualified and fully qualified have an element of consent or permission required to do that act or thing.” (Exhibit *) *. The Applicants' actions directly responded to the landlord’s noncompliance and failure to engage with the Applicants' legitimate concerns. The Applicants believe a reasonable person in the position would have acted similarly under such extreme pressure in and around our home. Under Article * (Freedom of Expression) and Article * (Freedom of Assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Applicant has a human right to peaceful protest. The Applicant protested non-violently from their balcony. *. The decision fails to consider the context and nature of the Applicant’s balcony protest, which was nonviolent and aimed at addressing the injustice of breaches to the July * Tomlin Agreement and Consent Order and breaches to the Applicant's rights under the UK personal data legislation. *. The Applicant’s actions responded to the landlord’s non-compliance. The Applicant’s protest was entirely peaceful and non-violent. *. The first-tier tribunal decision is that the Applicants, as ‘litigants in person,’ were unreasonable in defending the proceedings when the Landlord had threatened forfeiture and section *(*) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act *. Only a Tribunal or Court can decide that a breach of covenant has occurred. *. The Applicants (Mr. **** and Mr. Bell) have a right to defend allegations as litigants in person. *. The Tribunal agreed with Mr. **** and Mr. Bell that the protest was “annoying” but not “dangerous.” The Landlord offered no material evidence of physical damage to any Witness's property. (Exhibit *) *. The Applicants were working away much of * (Exhibit * ) *. The Applicants were away on * September * when Ms. Cox alleged that she soaked with water that came from Flat * (Exhibit *) *. Porters were monitoring Mr **** and Mr Bell’s coming to and going from their home (Exhibit *) *. The Landlord and associates meet to sit close to the lift to Mr. **** and Mr. Bell’s flat (Exhibit *) *. The First-tier Tribunal denied the Applicant’s witnesses to be cross-examined. The Applicants do not understand why their witnesses were prevented from giving evidence, having travelled to the Tribunal hearing. (Exhibit *)

****, here’s a more concise version of your draft for better impact:

Unreasonable Conduct
*. **Costs Award**: Tribunal used Rule * (*) (b) of the Procedure Rules * to award costs against Applicants for defending proceedings.
*. **Unreasonable Conduct**: Costs can only be awarded if a person acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings.
*. **Landlord’s Failures**: Tribunal ignored the landlord's withholding of personal data breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act.
*. **Overriding Objective**: Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, considering case importance, complexity, costs, and resources (Rule * * (*)).
*. **Litigants in Person**: At the * June * Tribunal, the Landlord accepted that Applicants, being 'litigants in person,' wouldn't know different covenant types.
*. **Peaceful Protest**: Applicants protested non-violently due to landlord’s non-compliance, protected under Articles * and * of the ECHR.
*. **Context Ignored**: Tribunal failed to consider the nonviolent nature and context of the balcony protest aimed at addressing breaches of the Tom

Proportionality of Costs *. .The Applicant is challenging the proportionality of the £*,* cost order. The cost order only pertains to the balcony protest and breach of covenant, not the First-tier Tribunal’s decision regarding service charges. Exhibit *) *. The Applicant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal related to the first-tier Tribunal’s decision regarding S.27A on service charges. *. The £*,* penalty imposed by the First-tier Tribunal dealing with the breach of covenant undermines Article * (Freedom of Expression) and Article * (Freedom of Assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights—the fundamental human right to protest. *. Admiral’s Walk * Ltd is the freehold company. Since October *, Mr **** and Mr Bell have been joint shareholders in the company. Mr **** and Mr Bell’s witnesses Mr Hacker, Dr Cooper and Mr De Rosa are all shareholders and ex-Directors of the company. The First-tier Tribunal have failed to take into consideration the Respondents application dated * April * for an order under paragraph 5A to Schedule * of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act * (the * Act) for an order to reduce or extinguish the Respondents' liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs *. The landlord hired both expert legal representation and an experienced Managing Agent, Napier Management Services to bring these proceedings. The Managing Agent is well-versed in First-tier Tribunal proceduresThe balcony and windows were apparent well before the 24th of April * video conference; therefore, the Applicant had already remedied the alleged breaches of covenant. *. The landlord did not need to produce additional material, including witness statements with unsubstantiated allegations, to which the applicants understood they had to respond. *. The £*,* costs do not relate to service charges, so they do not relate to any loss incurred by the landlord. No protest would have occurred if the landlord and agents had complied with the Tomlin Agreement and the Data Protection Act.

Sure, ****! Here’s a more concise version of your draft for better impact:

Proportionality of Costs
*. **Costs Challenge**: The Applicant disputes the £*,* cost order related only to the balcony protest and breach of covenant, not service charges. (Exhibit *)
*. **Upper Tribunal Appeal**: The appeal concerns the First-tier Tribunal's decision on S.27A regarding service charges.
*. **Human Rights**: The £*,* penalty undermines Articles * (Freedom of Expression) and * (Freedom of Assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
*. **Admiral’s Walk * Ltd**: Mr **** and Mr Bell, joint shareholders since *, had witnesses who are shareholders and ex-Directors. The Tribunal ignored the Respondents’ application dated * April * to reduce/waive litigation costs under the * Act.
*. **Landlord’s Actions**: The landlord employed experts and a managing agent familiar with Tribunal procedures. The Applicant had already remedied the covenant breaches before the video conference on * April *.
*. **Unnecessary Material**: The landlord’s additional, unsubstantiated witness statements

Procedural Fairness *. The Tribunal did not notify the Applicant of the video conference scheduled for * April * until the hearing was already underway. Upon realizing this, Mr. **** immediately called into the video conference. However, the Judge proceeded with the hearing without admitting Mr. ****. Since there is no transcript of the video hearing, the Applicants do not know whether the Landlord’s representative informed the judge that the balcony and windows were clean and that the protest had ended on * January *. Although the Tribunal subsequently sent the applicants a copy of the letter, the letter clearly states, “by Post only.” There is no evidence that the letter First-tier Tribunal ever sent the letter to the applicants. *. In addition, the Applicant informed the First-tier Tribunal that Mr. Bell suffers from Tourette’s syndrome, anxiety, and asthma and requested reasonable adjustments, including receiving documents by post, extra time for reading documents, and a change of venue. However, the Tribunal did not grant any of these requests. Furthermore, during the Tribunal hearing on * June *, the Landlord’s witness statements and representative attempted to belittle Mr. Bell by referring to him as "stupid” and questioning whether he had Tourette’s Syndrome. Just and Equitable Consideration *. .The Rule * Application Rule *(*) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules * provides as follows: “(*) The Tribunal may make an order in respect of costs only – under section *(*) of the * Act (wasted costs) and the costs incurred in applying for such costs. if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings in – (ii) a residential property case.” Willow Court Case – Upper Tribunal Guidance *. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) gave guidance in Willow Court Management Company (*) Limited & Others v Mrs. Ratna Alexander & Others (*) UK UT * (LC) as to how the First-Tier Tribunal should, in practice, exercise the application of Rule *. *. The Upper Tribunal identified a three-stage process. The first stage was for the Tribunal to determine whether a person had acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting the proceedings. The second stage was for the Tribunal to consider whether it should make an Order for costs considering unreasonable conduct. The third stage, in the event the Tribunal decided to make an Order, was what the terms of the Order should be. *. As “Litigants in Person,” the Applicants defended the proceedings, which included responding to the Landlord’s witness statements that the Landlord’s representative admitted contained much irrelevant material to the proceedings. *. The Applicants, therefore, defended the Landlord’s allegations without knowing that the Landlord’s allegations were irrelevant and that the Landlord should not have submitted this material. *. The Applicants were not aware that their protest was a breach of an unequivocal covenant. *. Penalizing the Applicants for a peaceful protest is unfair and unjust. The first-tier Tribunal is not a Court, and the Applicants were not on ‘trial.’ *. what the First-tier Tribunal considers ‘unreasonable conduct’ is unclear. The Applicant believes they, by any standards, have behaved in an exemplary fashion in conducting themselves in these proceedings.

****, here’s a more concise version of your draft for better impact:

Procedural Fairness
*. **Notification Failure**: The Tribunal did not notify the Applicant of the * April * video conference until it had already started. Mr. **** called in but was not admitted. There is no transcript, leaving the Applicants unaware if the Landlord informed the judge of the cleaned balcony and windows.

*. **Reasonable Adjustments Ignored**: The Tribunal ignored requests for reasonable adjustments for Mr. Bell’s Tourette’s syndrome, anxiety, and asthma. These included receiving documents by post, extra reading time, and a change of venue. During the * June * hearing, the Landlord’s representative belittled Mr. Bell.

Just and Equitable Consideration
*. **Rule * Application**: Under Rule *(*) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules *, costs can be awarded only if a person acted unreasonably in the proceedings.
*. **Willow Court Guidance**: The Upper Tribunal's guidance in Willow Court Management Company v Mrs. Ratna Alexander outlines a three-stage process to assess unreasonable conduct and costs.
*. **

Willow Court Case – Upper Tribunal Guidance *. The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) gave guidance in Willow Court Management Company (*) Limited & Others v Mrs. Ratna Alexander & Others (*) UK UT * (LC) as to how the First-Tier Tribunal should, in practice, exercise the application of Rule *. *. The Upper Tribunal identified a three-stage process. The first stage was for the Tribunal to determine whether a person had acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting the proceedings. The second stage was for the Tribunal to consider whether it should make an Order for costs considering unreasonable conduct. The third stage, in the event the Tribunal decided to make an Order, was what the terms of the Order should be. *. As “Litigants in Person,” the Applicants defended the proceedings, which included responding to the Landlord’s witness statements that the Landlord’s representative admitted contained much irrelevant material to the proceedings. *. The Applicants, therefore, defended the Landlord’s allegations without knowing that the Landlord’s allegations were irrelevant and that the Landlord should not have submitted this material. *. The Applicants were not aware that their protest was a breach of an unequivocal covenant. *. Penalizing the Applicants for a peaceful protest is unfair and unjust. The first-tier Tribunal is not a Court, and the Applicants were not on ‘trial.’ *. what the First-tier Tribunal considers ‘unreasonable conduct’ is unclear. The Applicant believes they, by any standards, have behaved in an exemplary fashion in conducting themselves in these proceedings.

Hello ****,
Here's a more concise version of your draft for better impact:
---

Specific Relief Sought *. The Applicant requests that the Upper Tribunal overturn the First-tier Tribunal’s decisions relating to the £*,* cost order and £* tribunal fees. *. The Applicant requests that the Upper Tribunal overturn the First-tier Tribunal’s decisions relating to: *. An application by the Respondents dated * April * for an order under paragraph 5A to Schedule * of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act * (the * Act) for an order to reduce or extinguish the Respondents' liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs. *. The tribunal declined to make an order to reduce or extinguish the Respondent's liability to pay an administration charge regarding litigation costs under paragraph 5A of part * of Schedule * of the * Act. It dismissed the Respondent's application in that regard. *. An application by the Respondents dated * April * for an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act * (the * Act) that all or any of the costs incurred by the Applicant in connection with the proceedings before the Tribunal are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the Respondents or any other person or persons specified in the application. *. The Tribunal declined to make an order that all or any of the costs incurred by the Applicant in connection with these proceedings are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the Respondents and dismisses the Respondents' application in that regard. July * Tomlin Agreement Breach: *. The Tomlin Agreement consent order recorded a settlement between the parties (Exhibit *). *. Following the Landlord’s alleged breach of the settlement agreement in July *, the Applicant applied to the County Court to enforce the contract. The Applicant sought specific performance and a claim for damages due to the Landlord's breach. Correspondence demonstrating the Landlord’s demand and breach of confidentiality are enclosed (Exhibit *). *. The Landlord’s excess demand is £*,*, breaching the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit *). *. .The Landlord’s failure to respond to the Applicant’s correspondence breached the Tomlin Agreement (Exhibit *). Human Rights Violations: *. Under Article * (Freedom of Expression) and Article * (Freedom of Assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Applicant wishes to protect their right to protest non-violently from their balcony. *. The first-tier tribunal's penalty of £*,* undermines these fundamental rights and is disproportionate to the peaceful protest. Disability Discrimination: *. The landlord has unfairly targeted applicants, evidenced by stalking (Landlord, harassment, and threatening letters sitting close to the Applicants lift (Exhibit) *. The landlord’s letter dated infringes on the Applicant's fundamental right of free expression on his property. *. This constitutes disability discrimination under the Equality Act *. *. Data Protection Breach: *. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) confirmed that the landlord and agent breached our data. *. The First-tier Tribunal judge ignored this breach, which is a significant oversight affecting the fairness of the proceedings. *. This oversight led to an unjust cost decision, ignoring crucial evidence that could have influenced the tribunal's view on the reasonableness of our defense.

Hello ****,
I've reviewed your draft and made it more concise for impact. Here’s the revised version:
---
**Unreasonable Conduct**
*. **Costs Award**: The Tribunal used Rule *(*)(b) of the Procedure Rules * to award costs against Applicants for defending proceedings.
*. **Unreasonable Conduct**: Costs can only be awarded if a person acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings.
*. **Landlord’s Failures**: The Tribunal ignored the landlord's withholding of personal data breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act.
*. **Overriding Objective**: The Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, considering the case's importance, complexity, costs, and resources (Rule * *(*)).
*. **Litigants in Person**: The Landlord acknowledged that Applicants, being 'litigants in person,' wouldn't know different covenant types.
*. **Peaceful Protest**: Applicants protested non-violently due to the landlord’s non-compliance, protected under Articles * and * of the ECHR.
*. **Context Ignored**: The Tribunal failed to consider the nonviolent nature and context of the balcony protest aimed at addressing breaches

Could you review the next section please

Of course, ****. Please share the next section, and I'll help make it concise for impact.

Sure, ****! Here's a more concise version of the next section for better impact:
---
**Specific Relief Sought**
*. **Overturn Costs**: Request to overturn the £*,* cost order and £* tribunal fees by the Upper Tribunal.
*. **Reduce Administration Charges**: Overturn decisions on the application dated * April * under paragraph 5A to Schedule * of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act * to reduce or extinguish liability for administration charges.
*. **Exclude Tribunal Costs from Service Charges**: Overturn decisions on the application dated * April * under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act *, excluding tribunal costs from service charges.
**July * Tomlin Agreement Breach**
*. **Contract Enforcement**: Following the landlord's breach in July *, the Applicant seeks enforcement of the settlement agreement and damages. (Exhibits *-*)
**Human Rights Violations**
*. **Freedom of Expression & Assembly**: The £*,* penalty undermines the right to peaceful protest under Articles * and * of the European Convention on Human Rights.
**Disability Discrimination**
*. **Targeted Har

Please could you review this last section

Of course, ****. Here’s a more concise version of your last section for better impact:
---
**Specific Relief Sought**
*. **Overturn Costs**: Request the Upper Tribunal to overturn the £*,* cost order and £* tribunal fees.
*. **Reduce Administration Charges**: Overturn decisions on the application dated * April * under paragraph 5A to Schedule * of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act *, reducing or extinguishing liability for administration charges.
*. **Exclude Tribunal Costs from Service Charges**: Overturn decisions on the application dated * April * under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act *, excluding tribunal costs from service charges.
**July * Tomlin Agreement Breach**
*. **Contract Enforcement**: Request enforcement of the settlement agreement and damages following the landlord's breach in July *. (Exhibits *-*)
**Human Rights Violations**
*. **Freedom of Expression & Assembly**: Argue that the £*,* penalty undermines the right to peaceful protest under Articles * and * of the European Convention on Human Rights.
**Disability Discrimination**
*. **Unfair

Disability Discrimination: *. The landlord has unfairly targeted applicants, evidenced by stalking (Landlord, harassment, and threatening letters sitting close to the Applicants lift (Exhibit) *. The landlord’s letter dated infringes on the Applicant's fundamental right of free expression on his property. *. This constitutes disability discrimination under the Equality Act *. *. Data Protection Breach: *. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) confirmed that the landlord and agent breached our data. *. The First-tier Tribunal judge ignored this breach, which is a significant oversight affecting the fairness of the proceedings. *. This oversight led to an unjust cost decision, ignoring crucial evidence that could have influenced the tribunal's view on the reasonableness of our defense. Supporting Evidence *. ICO's confirmation of the data breach (attached). *. Correspondence and documentation related to the data breach (attached). *. Evidence of the remedied breach of covenant (attached). *. Documentation of the protest and the nature of the assembly (attached). *. Medical documentation regarding my partner’s Tourette's syndrome (attached). *. Conclusion: *. Given the significant legal and factual oversights, human rights violations, disability discrimination, and data protection breaches, I respectfully request permission to appeal. *. . I am available for any further clarification or documentation that the Upper Tribunal may require.

Sure, ****. Here’s a concise version of the last section for better impact:
---
**Disability Discrimination**
*. **Targeting**: The landlord unfairly targeted applicants, evidenced by stalking, harassment, and threatening letters near the lift. (Exhibit)
*. **Infringement**: The landlord’s letter infringes on the Applicant's fundamental right to free expression on his property.
*. **Equality Act ***: This constitutes disability discrimination under the Equality Act *.
**Data Protection Breach**
*. **ICO Confirmation**: The ICO confirmed that the landlord and agent breached our data.
*. **Tribunal Oversight**: The First-tier Tribunal judge ignored this breach, affecting the fairness of the proceedings.
*. **Impact**: This oversight led to an unjust cost decision, ignoring crucial evidence that could have influenced the tribunal's view on our defense's reasonableness.
**Supporting Evidence**
*. **Attachments**:
- ICO's confirmation of the data breach.
- Correspondence and documentation related to the data breach.
- Evidence of the remedied breach of covenant.
- Documentation of the protest and the nature of the assembly.
- Medical documentation regarding my partner’s Tourette

Please could you organise for greatest impact

Sure, ****. Here’s your document organized for greatest impact:
---
**Unreasonable Conduct**
*. **Costs Award**: The Tribunal used Rule *(*)(b) of the Procedure Rules * to award costs against Applicants for defending proceedings.
*. **Unreasonable Conduct**: Costs can only be awarded if a person acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings.
*. **Landlord’s Failures**: The Tribunal ignored the landlord's withholding of personal data breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act.
*. **Overriding Objective**: The Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, considering the case's importance, complexity, costs, and resources (Rule * *(*)).
*. **Litigants in Person**: The Landlord acknowledged that Applicants, being 'litigants in person,' wouldn't know different covenant types.
*. **Peaceful Protest**: Applicants protested non-violently due to the landlord’s non-compliance, protected under Articles * and * of the ECHR.
*. **Context Ignored**: The Tribunal failed to consider the nonviolent nature and context of the balcony protest aimed at addressing breaches.
**Specific Relief Sought**
*

*. The judge misunderstood our peaceful protest as unreasonable, ignoring the landlord's year-long failure to address our concerns. (Exhibit *) *. The decision overlooked the landlord's breach of the Tomlin Agreement by not responding to our communications, prompting our protest. (Exhibit *) *. In January *, the Landlord's solicitor refused the Applicant's offer to discuss concerns. (Exhibit *) *. The Landlord did not comply with the ICO's instructions to respond fully to our CCTV request after an assault threat. (Exhibit *) *. Following this, the Police issued a protection notice and referred the Applicant to victim support. (Exhibit *) *. The Applicant sought advice from victim support and other organizations on harassment and stalking. (Exhibit *) *. The Applicant remedied the covenant breach on * January *, before the video conference on * April *, and the Tribunal hearing on * June *. (Exhibit *) *. The protest was a response to the landlord’s failures, causing distress to a vulnerable person with Tourette’s Syndrome, Anxiety disorder, and asthma. Unreasonable Conduct *. **Costs Award**: The tribunal used Rule * (*) (b) of the Procedure Rules * to award costs against Applicants for defending proceedings. *. **Unreasonable Conduct**: The First-tier Tribunal can only award costs against a party if that party acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings. *. **Landlord’s Failures**: The Tribunal ignored the landlord's withholding of personal data breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act. *. The Tribunal failed to apply the Willow Court tests. *. The Tribunal’s decision on costs is inconsistent with the First-tier Tribunal’s case decision. *. **Overriding Objective**: The tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, considering their importance, complexity, costs, and resources (Rule * * (*)). *. **Litigants in Person**: At the * June * Tribunal, the Landlord accepted that Applicants, being 'litigants in person,' wouldn't know different covenant types. *. **Peaceful Protest**: The applicants protested non-violently due to the landlord’s noncompliance, which is protected under Articles * and * of the ECHR. *. **Context Ignored**: The Tribunal failed to consider the nonviolent nature and context of the balcony protest aimed at addressing breaches of the Tom Proportionality of Costs *. **Costs Challenge**: The Applicant disputes the £*,* cost order related only to the balcony protest and breach of covenant, not service charges. (Exhibit *) *. **Human Rights**: The £*,* penalty undermines Articles * (Freedom of Expression) and * (Freedom of Assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights. *. **Admiral’s Walk * Ltd**: Mr **** and Mr Bell, joint shareholders since *, had witnesses who are shareholders and ex-Directors. The Tribunal ignored the Respondents’ application dated * April * to reduce/waive litigation costs under the * Act. *. **Landlord’s Actions**: The landlord employed experts and a managing agent familiar with Tribunal procedures. The Applicant had already remedied the covenant breaches before the video conference on * April *. *. **Unnecessary Material**: The landlord’s additional, unsubstantiated witness statements *. Procedural Fairness *. **Notification Failure**: The Tribunal did not notify the Applicant of the * April * video conference until it had already started. Mr. **** called in but was not admitted. There is no transcript, leaving the Applicants unaware if the Landlord informed the judge of the cleaned balcony and windows.

Sure, ****. Here’s your document organized for greatest impact:
---
**Unreasonable Conduct**
*. **Costs Award**: The tribunal used Rule *(*)(b) of the Procedure Rules * to award costs against Applicants for defending proceedings.
*. **Unreasonable Conduct**: Costs can only be awarded if a party acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings.
*. **Landlord’s Failures**: The Tribunal ignored the landlord's withholding of personal data breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act.
*. **Overriding Objective**: The Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, considering the case's importance, complexity, costs, and resources (Rule * *(*)).
*. **Litigants in Person**: The Landlord acknowledged that Applicants, being 'litigants in person,' wouldn't know different covenant types.
*. **Peaceful Protest**: Applicants protested non-violently due to the landlord’s non-compliance, protected under Articles * and * of the ECHR.
*. **Context Ignored**: The Tribunal failed to consider the nonviolent nature and context of the balcony protest aimed at addressing breaches of the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection

Proportionality of Costs *. **Costs Challenge**: The Applicant disputes the £*,* cost order related only to the balcony protest and breach of covenant, not service charges. (Exhibit *) *. **Human Rights**: The £*,* penalty undermines Articles * (Freedom of Expression) and * (Freedom of Assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights. *. **Admiral’s Walk * Ltd**: Mr **** and Mr Bell, joint shareholders since *, had witnesses who are shareholders and ex-Directors. The Tribunal ignored the Respondents’ application dated * April * to reduce/waive litigation costs under the * Act. *. **Landlord’s Actions**: The landlord employed experts and a managing agent familiar with Tribunal procedures. The Applicant had already remedied the covenant breaches before the video conference on * April *. *. **Unnecessary Material**: The landlord’s additional, unsubstantiated witness statements

Could you please review next section for maximum impact

Of course, ****. Please share the next section, and I'll help make it concise for maximum impact.

Proportionality of Costs *. **Costs Challenge**: The Applicant disputes the £*,* cost order related only to the balcony protest and breach of covenant, not service charges. (Exhibit *) *. **Human Rights**: The £*,* penalty undermines Articles * (Freedom of Expression) and * (Freedom of Assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights. *. **Admiral’s Walk * Ltd**: Mr **** and Mr Bell, joint shareholders since *, had witnesses who are shareholders and ex-Directors. The Tribunal ignored the Respondents’ application dated * April * to reduce/waive litigation costs under the * Act. *. **Landlord’s Actions**: The landlord employed experts and a managing agent familiar with Tribunal procedures. The Applicant had already remedied the covenant breaches before the video conference on * April *. *. **Unnecessary Material**: The landlord’s additional, unsubstantiated witness statements

Sure, ****. Here’s the next section revised for maximum impact:
---
**Proportionality of Costs**
*. **Costs Challenge**: The Applicant disputes the £*,* cost order, which pertains only to the balcony protest and breach of covenant, not service charges. (Exhibit *)
*. **Human Rights**: The £*,* penalty undermines Articles * (Freedom of Expression) and * (Freedom of Assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
*. **Admiral’s Walk * Ltd**: Mr. **** and Mr. Bell, joint shareholders since *, had witnesses who are shareholders and ex-Directors. The Tribunal ignored the Respondents’ application dated * April * to reduce/waive litigation costs under the * Act.
*. **Landlord’s Actions**: The landlord employed experts and a managing agent familiar with Tribunal procedures. The Applicant had already remedied the covenant breaches before the video conference on * April *.
*. **Unnecessary Material**: The landlord submitted additional, unsubstantiated witness statements, complicating proceedings unnecessarily.
---
If you have any further sections or need additional adjustments, please let me know!

*. ---Procedural Fairness *. **Notification Failure**: The Tribunal did not notify the Applicant of the * April * video conference until it had already started. Mr. **** called in but was not admitted. There is no transcript, leaving the Applicants unaware if the Landlord informed the judge of the cleaned balcony and windows. *. **Reasonable Adjustments Ignored**: The Tribunal ignored requests for reasonable adjustments for Mr. Bell’s Tourette’s syndrome, anxiety, and asthma. These included receiving documents by post, extra reading time, and a change of venue. During the * June * hearing, the Landlord’s representative belittled Mr. Bell.

Sure, ****. Here’s the next section revised for maximum impact:
---
**Procedural Fairness**
*. **Notification Failure**: The Tribunal did not notify the Applicant of the * April * video conference until it had already started. Mr. **** called in but was not admitted. There is no transcript, leaving the Applicants unaware if the Landlord informed the judge of the cleaned balcony and windows.
*. **Reasonable Adjustments Ignored**: The Tribunal ignored requests for reasonable adjustments for Mr. Bell’s Tourette’s syndrome, anxiety, and asthma. These included receiving documents by post, extra reading time, and a change of venue. During the * June * hearing, the Landlord’s representative belittled Mr. Bell.
---
If you have any further sections or need additional adjustments, please let me know!

*. Just and Equitable Consideration *. **Rule * Application**: Under Rule *(*) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules *, costs can be awarded only if a person acted unreasonably in the proceedings. *. **Willow Court Guidance**: The Upper Tribunal's guidance in Willow Court Management Company v Mrs. Ratna Alexander outlines a three-stage process to assess unreasonable conduct and costs.

Sure, ****. Here’s the next section revised for maximum impact:
---
**Just and Equitable Consideration**
*. **Rule * Application**: Under Rule *(*) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules *, costs can be awarded only if a person acted unreasonably in the proceedings.
*. **Willow Court Guidance**: The Upper Tribunal's guidance in Willow Court Management Company v Mrs. Ratna Alexander outlines a three-stage process to assess unreasonable conduct and costs.
---
If you have any further sections or need additional adjustments, please let me know!

*. **Specific Relief Sought** *. **Overturn Costs**: Request to overturn the £*,* cost order and £* tribunal fees by the Upper Tribunal. *. **Reduce Administration Charges**: Overturn decisions on the application dated * April * under paragraph 5A to Schedule * of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act * to reduce or extinguish liability for administration charges. *. **Exclude Tribunal Costs from Service Charges**: Overturn decisions on the application dated * April * under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act *, excluding tribunal costs from service charges. *. **July * Tomlin Agreement Breach** *. **Contract Enforcement**: Following the landlord's breach in July *, the Applicant seeks enforcement of the settlement agreement and damages. (Exhibits *-*)

Sure, ****. Here’s the final section revised for maximum impact:
---
**Specific Relief Sought**
*. **Overturn Costs**: Request to overturn the £*,* cost order and £* tribunal fees by the Upper Tribunal.
*. **Reduce Administration Charges**: Overturn decisions on the application dated * April * under paragraph 5A to Schedule * of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act * to reduce or extinguish liability for administration charges.
*. **Exclude Tribunal Costs from Service Charges**: Overturn decisions on the application dated * April * under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act *, excluding tribunal costs from service charges.
**July * Tomlin Agreement Breach**
*. **Contract Enforcement**: Following the landlord's breach in July *, the Applicant seeks enforcement of the settlement agreement and damages. (Exhibits *-*)
---
If you have any further sections or need additional adjustments, please let me know!

*. **July * Tomlin Agreement Breach** *. *. **Contract Enforcement**: Following the landlord's breach in July *, the Applicant seeks enforcement of the settlement agreement and damages. (Exhibits *-*) *. ---**July * Tomlin Agreement Breach** *. **Contract Enforcement**: Following the landlord's breach in July *, the Applicant seeks enforcement of the settlement agreement and damages. (Exhibits *-*) *. **Human Rights Violations** *. **Freedom of Expression & Assembly**: The £*,* penalty undermines the right to peaceful protest under Articles * and * of the European Convention on Human Rights. *. **Disability Discrimination** *. **Disability Discrimination** *. **Targeting**: The landlord unfairly targeted applicants, evidenced by stalking, harassment, and threatening letters near the lift. (Exhibit) *. **Infringement**: The landlord’s letter infringes on the Applicant's fundamental right to free expression on his property. *. **Equality Act ***: This constitutes disability discrimination under the Equality Act *. *. **Data Protection Breach** *. **ICO Confirmation**: The ICO confirmed that the landlord and agent breached our data. *. **Tribunal Oversight**: The First-tier Tribunal judge ignored this breach, affecting the fairness of the proceedings. *. **Impact**: This oversight led to an unjust cost decision, ignoring crucial evidence that could have influenced the tribunal's view on our defence’s reasonableness. *. **Supporting Evidence**

Sure, ****. Here’s your document organized for greatest impact:
---
**Unreasonable Conduct**
*. **Costs Award**: The Tribunal used Rule *(*)(b) of the Procedure Rules * to award costs against Applicants for defending proceedings.
*. **Unreasonable Conduct**: Costs can only be awarded if a party acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings.
*. **Landlord’s Failures**: The Tribunal ignored the landlord's withholding of personal data breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act.
*. **Overriding Objective**: The Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, considering the case's importance, complexity, costs, and resources (Rule * *(*)).
*. **Litigants in Person**: The Landlord acknowledged that Applicants, being 'litigants in person,' wouldn't know different covenant types.
*. **Peaceful Protest**: Applicants protested non-violently due to the landlord’s non-compliance, protected under Articles * and * of the ECHR.
*. **Context Ignored**: The Tribunal failed to consider the nonviolent nature and context of the balcony protest aimed at addressing breaches of the Tomlin Agreement.
**Pro

Could you please review this final section for concise and impactful presntation

Of course, ****. Here’s your final section revised for concise and impactful presentation:
---

**Unreasonable Conduct**
*. **Costs Award**: The Tribunal used Rule *(*)(b) of the Procedure Rules * to award costs against Applicants for defending proceedings.
*. **Unreasonable Conduct**: Costs can only be awarded if a party acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings.
*. **Landlord’s Failures**: The Tribunal ignored the landlord's withholding of personal data breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act.
*. **Overriding Objective**: The Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, considering the case's importance, complexity, costs, and resources (Rule * *(*)).
*. **Litigants in Person**: The Landlord acknowledged that Applicants, being 'litigants in person,' wouldn't know different covenant types.
*. **Peaceful Protest**: Applicants protested non-violently due to the landlord’s non-compliance, protected under Articles * and * of the ECHR.
*. **Context Ignored**: The Tribunal failed to consider the nonviolent nature and context of the balcony protest aimed at addressing breaches of the Tom

Sure, ****. Here’s your final section revised for concise and impactful presentation:
---
**July * Tomlin Agreement Breach**
*. **Contract Enforcement**: Following the landlord's breach in July *, the Applicant seeks enforcement of the settlement agreement and damages. (Exhibits *-*)
**Human Rights Violations**
*. **Freedom of Expression & Assembly**: The £*,* penalty undermines the right to peaceful protest under Articles * and * of the European Convention on Human Rights.
**Disability Discrimination**
*. **Targeting**: The landlord unfairly targeted applicants, evidenced by stalking, harassment, and threatening letters near the lift. (Exhibit)
*. **Infringement**: The landlord’s letter infringes on the Applicant's fundamental right to free expression on his property.
*. **Equality Act ***: This constitutes disability discrimination under the Equality Act *.
**Data Protection Breach**
*. **ICO Confirmation**: The ICO confirmed that the landlord and agent breached our data.
*. **Tribunal Oversight**: The First-tier Tribunal judge ignored this breach, affecting the fairness of the proceedings.
*. **Impact**: This oversight led

Please check for corrections for Lands Chamber applications pleaase

Revised Draft for Lands Chamber Application:
---

Unreasonable Conduct
*. **Costs Award**: The Tribunal used Rule *(*)(b) of the Procedure Rules * to award costs against Applicants for defending proceedings.
*. **Unreasonable Conduct**: Costs can only be awarded if a party acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings.
*. **Landlord’s Failures**: The Tribunal ignored the landlord's withholding of personal data breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act.
*. **Overriding Objective**: The Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, considering the case's importance, complexity, costs, and resources (Rule * *(*)).
*. **Litigants in Person**: The Landlord acknowledged that Applicants, being 'litigants in person,' wouldn't know different covenant types.
*. **Peaceful Protest**: Applicants protested non-violently due to the landlord’s non-compliance, protected under Articles * and * of the ECHR.
*. **Context Ignored**: The Tribunal failed to consider the nonviolent nature and context of the balcony protest aimed at addressing breaches of the Tomlin Agreement.
---

Proportionality of

*. The Applicants seek permission to appeal the First-tier Tribunal's costs decision dated * July *. *. Tribunal Case Reference: CHI/00HN/LSC/*/* and CHI/00HN/LBC/*/*. *. The judge misunderstood our peaceful protest as unreasonable, ignoring the landlord's year-long failure to address our concerns. (Exhibit *) *. The decision overlooked the landlord's breach of the Tomlin Agreement by not responding to our communications, prompting our protest. (Exhibit *) *. In January *, the Landlord's solicitor refused the Applicant's offer to discuss concerns. (Exhibit *) *. The Landlord did not comply with the ICO's instructions to respond fully to our CCTV request after an assault threat. (Exhibit *) *. Following this, the Police issued a protection notice and referred the Applicant to victim support. (Exhibit *) *. The Applicant sought advice from victim support and other organizations on harassment and stalking. (Exhibit *) *. The Applicant remedied the covenant breach on * January *, before the video conference on * April * and the Tribunal hearing on * June *. (Exhibit *) *. The protest was a response to the landlord’s failures, causing distress to a vulnerable person with Tourette’s Syndrome, Anxiety disorder, and asthma. Unreasonable Conduct *. Costs Award: The tribunal used Rule *(*)(b) of the Procedure Rules * to award costs against Applicants for defending proceedings. *. The First-tier Tribunal may only award costs if a party unreasonably brings, defends, or conducts proceedings. *. Landlord’s Failures: The Tribunal ignored the landlord's withholding of personal data breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act. *. Overriding Objective: The Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, considering the case's importance, complexity, costs, and resources (Rule * *(*)). *. Litigants in Person: The Landlord acknowledged that Applicants, being 'litigants in person,' would not know different covenant types. *. Peaceful Protest: The applicants peacefully protested the landlord’s noncompliance. Under Articles * and * of the ECHR such nonviolent protests are protected *. Context Ignored: The Tribunal failed to consider the nonviolent nature and context of the balcony protest aimed at addressing breaches of the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Proportionality of Costs *. Costs Challenge: The Applicant disputes the £*,* cost order, which pertains only to the balcony protest and breach of covenant, not service charges. (Exhibit *) *. Human Rights: The £*,* penalty undermines Articles * (Freedom of Expression) and * (Freedom of Assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights. *. Admiral’s Walk * Ltd: Mr. **** and Mr. Bell, joint shareholders since *, had witnesses who are shareholders and ex-directors. The Tribunal ignored the Respondents’ application dated * April * to reduce/waive litigation costs under the * Act. *. Landlord’s Actions: The landlord employed experts and a managing agent familiar with Tribunal procedures. The Applicant had already remedied the covenant breaches before the video conference on * April *. *. Unnecessary Material: The landlord submitted additional, unsubstantiated witness statements, which unnecessarily complicated proceedings. *. Procedural Fairness *. . Notification Failure: The Tribunal did not notify the Applicant of the * April * video conference until it started. Mr. **** called in, but the Conference Manager did not admit him. There is no transcript, leaving the Applicants unaware if the Landlord informed the judge of the cleaned balcony and windows. *. Reasonable Adjustments Ignored: The Tribunal ignored requests for reasonable adjustments for Mr. Bell’s Tourette syndrome, anxiety, and asthma. These included receiving documents by post, extra reading time, and a change of venue. During the * June * hearing, the Landlord’s representative belittled Mr. Bell. Just and Equitable Consideration *. Rule * Application: Under Rule *(*) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules *. The First-tier Tribunal can award costs against a party only if a party to the proceedings has acted unreasonably in the proceedings. *. Willow Court Guidance: The Upper Tribunal's guidance in Willow Court Management Company v Mrs. Ratna Alexander outlines a three-stage process to assess unreasonable conduct and costs. Specific Relief Sought *. Overturn Costs: Request to overturn the £*,* cost order and £* tribunal fees by the Upper Tribunal. *. . Reduce Administration Charges: Overturn decisions on the application dated * April * under paragraph 5A to Schedule * of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act * to reduce or extinguish liability for administration charges. *. . Exclude Tribunal Costs from Service Charges: Overturn decisions on the application dated * April * under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act *, excluding tribunal costs from service charges. July * Tomlin Agreement Breach – Enforcement July * and Clim for damages *. Contract Enforcement: Following the landlord's breach in July *, the Applicant seeks enforcement of the settlement agreement and damages. (Exhibits *-*) Human Rights Violations: *. Freedom of Expression & Assembly: The £*,* penalty undermines the right to peaceful protest under Articles * and * of the European Convention on Human Rights. *. Disability Discrimination *. Targeting: The landlord unfairly targeted applicants, evidenced by stalking, harassment, and threatening letters near the lift. (Exhibit) *. Infringement: The landlord’s letter infringes on the Applicant's fundamental right to free expression on his property. *. Equality Act *: This constitutes disability discrimination under the Equality Act *. Data Protection Breach *. ICO Confirmation: The ICO confirmed that the landlord and agent breached our data. *. Tribunal Oversight: The First-tier Tribunal judge ignored this breach, affecting the fairness of the proceedings.**Impact**: *. This oversight led to an unjust cost decision, ignoring crucial evidence that could have influenced the tribunal's view of our reasonableness.

Sure, ****. Here’s your document organized for maximum impact:
---
**Unreasonable Conduct**
*. **Costs Award**: The Tribunal used Rule *(*)(b) of the Procedure Rules * to award costs against Applicants for defending proceedings.
*. **Unreasonable Conduct**: Costs can only be awarded if a party acted unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings.
*. **Landlord’s Failures**: The Tribunal ignored the landlord's withholding of personal data breaches under the Tomlin Agreement and Data Protection Act.
*. **Overriding Objective**: The Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly, considering the case's importance, complexity, costs, and resources (Rule * *(*)).
*. **Litigants in Person**: The Landlord acknowledged that Applicants, being 'litigants in person,' wouldn’t know different covenant types.
*. **Peaceful Protest**: Applicants protested non-violently due to the landlord’s non-compliance, protected under Articles * and * of the ECHR.
*. **Context Ignored**: The Tribunal failed to consider the nonviolent nature and context of the balcony protest aimed at addressing breaches of the Tomlin Agreement.
**

Landlords Breach And Costs

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats