From: Jason Kallis <JKallis@meralibeedle.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 10:54 am
To: 'Tarquin Management Ltd' <51DP@davylondon.net>; 'Central London County, Enquiries' <enquiries.centrallondon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>; 'Morris, Diane' <diane.morris@justice.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: [DPS:4I:51DR001/001:E] RE: L10CL472 - URGENT Please put before judge - re: order of 6th June
Dear Sirs
URGENT - PLEASE PLACE BEFORE A JUDGE ON RECEIPT
We act for the Claimant and Respondent in this matter, and write in respect of the hearing dated 15 August 2025, the hearing of the Defendant’s application to set aside the order made on 12 February 2025.
The grounds for this application are not well set out in the application, nor evidenced.
Nonetheless, the notice sent out by the court for the hearing on 12 February 2025 was very short. On this basis alone the Defendant’s concede that the order dated 12 February should be set aside. However, they do not agree to pay costs of that setting aside
(the Applicant has not instructed lawyers and in any event there are a number of other issues that relate to costs that would weigh in the Respondent’s favour in this case).
Further, the Claimants are very clear that the address for service used in the claim form and in respect of the service of the Order made on 12 February but dated 2 April was correct – the address has been used by the landlord Respondent since issue, and indeed
since 12 February in relation to formal matters and correspondence regarding this matter. Indeed, it is the address most connected with this dispute in any event.
The matter also concerns issues relating to a property being at the centre of a long standing police investigation into drug dealing which the current landlord will not take action in respect of (despite being the long leaseholder of the flat also at the centre
of the investigation). The freeholder (as was) has made it his stated intention to cause as much delay and cost for the Claimants and has no real Defence to the Claim either. The property is in disrepair, with the roof needing major works for the last 8 to
10 years, and that lead to a ceiling collapsing dangerously in the last 6 – 9 months. The matter is very urgent as a result, and only relates to a vesting order.
The Claimant’s therefore respectfully request that the court leaves the hearing date of 15 August in as an appointment to make the Vesting Order and deal with costs generally as a result.
Please acknowledge receipt.
Yours faithfully
Merali beedle
From: Jason Kallis <jkallis@meralibeedle.com>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2025 10:15 AM
To: Tarquin Management Ltd <51DP@davylondon.net>; Central London County, Enquiries <enquiries.centrallondon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>; Morris, Diane <diane.morris@justice.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: [DPS:4I:51DR001/001:E] RE: L10CL472 - URGENT Please put before judge - re: order of 6th June
Dear Sirs
We act for the Claimant/Respondent.
We agree that the 15 August can remain the hearing date, but we have not agreed any extension of time for the hearing. We would only agree the same if the date remains the same.
Yours faithfully
Merali Beedle
Dear Mrs. Morris, Court,
Further to the Court’s order of 6 June 2025 — issued in response to the Claimant’s request for urgency — which directed that the set aside hearing originally listed for 15 August be relisted for the first available date after 12 June, we confirm that both parties
are now content for the hearing to proceed on 15 August 2025. A copy of Mr Kallis’s confirmation is attached.
In light of this agreement, we respectfully request that the hearing be relisted for 15 August 2025, with the allocated 60 minutes.
Yours faithfully,
Davy Thielens
For Tarquin Management Ltd
On 18/06/2025 10:44, Jason Kallis wrote:
Dear Sirs
In response to the email below, the Claimant/Respondent should make the following clear to the Court staff.
Could we make sure that any decisions made about the listing of this matter are dealt with by the Judge presiding over the application hearing. The Court record should show that this matter results from failures (repeated) by Tarquin to attend to previous court
deadlines in this court and in the LVT, and they have stated on record (in writing) that they will make it their job to delay matters, and increase costs. That is, we consider, the purpose of the email below.
The hearing of the Defendant’s application has now of course been listed as per the attached for 15 August. We hereby serve it on Tarquin.
We do not intend to respond to the points made below, here, but can if the Judge wishes us to do so.
Yours faithfully
Merali Beedle
Dear Judge,
On Monday 16 June 2025, we received at our registered office a notification of an order made on 6 June, directing that a hearing be listed at the first available date,
seven days from the date of the order – i.e., from 12 June. The envelope in which the order was sent bears a postmark of 10 June (photo attached), and we only received it on 16 June.
We are not currently represented, and if we understand the order correctly, it means the hearing could now be listed on any day without further notice.
This appears to be in response to an email by Mr Kallis, solicitor for the Claimants, dated 2 June 2025, which grossly misrepresents the current situation and portrays
a picture of urgency that is entirely divorced from reality. It is alarmist and unprofessional in the extreme.
Prejudice Arising from Timing and Service
The vesting order was granted at a hearing of which the Defendants received no adequate notice, and on the basis of serious misrepresentations by Mr Kallis – a position
he has not resiled from. On the contrary, he doubled down in his second statement and now again in his request for urgency.
We had been in the process of responding to that email and preparing to rebut the unfounded allegations against us as freeholders when we received notice setting a hearing
for 15 August. In light of that earlier notice, we felt it unnecessary to correct Mr Kallis’s misleading account or file evidence at that stage.
Now, having received this new notice – very late – of a listing potentially from last week onward, we are faced with an impending hearing at virtually no notice, with
both directors out of the country until 25 June.
On the basis of further misleading allegations, unsupported by any evidence from Mr Kallis, we now risk our application to set aside an order made in our absence – and
based on untrue statements of fact – being decided again without adequate notice, and again in our absence if listed before 25 June. That would compound the unfairness of the original hearing with further unfairness in the handling of our set-aside application.
We respectfully invite the Court not to list the hearing prior to 25 June and to provide us with adequate notice. We have repeatedly indicated our willingness to accept
service by email at 51DP@davylondon.net,
but this does not appear to have been updated on the Court file. As a result, the Claimants are served by email the day orders are made, while we receive them only by post, sometimes over a week later – as here, 11 days after the order, and well after the
expiry of the supposed 7-day notice.
The Manufactured Sense of Urgency
We strongly invite the Court to reconsider whether this case warrants being prioritised over genuinely urgent matters. The urgency is entirely manufactured, and distracts
from the key issue in this dispute: a number of the acquisition terms remain unresolved, have not been agreed, and were never determined by the Tribunal – making the vesting order inapplicable regardless of any claimed urgency.
Mr Kallis makes dramatic assertions – “children evacuated,” an untrustworthy landlord – but provides no supporting evidence. He purports to conclude, “on the balance
of probability,” that drug dealing is taking place, yet gives no indication of the evidential basis for that conclusion, or why such an exercise is even necessary if, as he claims, criminal proceedings are ongoing.
These same allegations have been repeated since 2022, never supported with evidence, and already dismissed by the Tribunal both in its substantive decision and its later
ruling on costs. No new material has been offered. No incident has been reported to us that would justify evacuations or render the property unusable.
The tenant alleged to be involved in criminal activity has lived at the property since December 2019. There has never been a single report of anti-social behaviour, noise,
confrontation, or safety issue. Still less has there been any suggestion that children, including those in Flat 5 – the source of most complaints – were at risk.
There is absolutely no supporting evidence. Not only is there no conviction, as Mr Kallis admits, but no evidence has been offered at all. Just a few anonymous reports
of a smell on the common stairs, which could not be verified later. No evidence of a seizure, arrest, denial of bail, custody, or charges. Nothing but the ongoing campaign of Mr Galani in Flat 5, who has labelled the tenant in Flat 2 a “bad apple.”
The Roof Narrative – Facts Omitted
The Claimants now cite a ceiling collapse to reinforce their narrative. Again, facts are missing.
Since January 2021, leaseholders behind the enfranchisement – including Mr Galani – have refused access to our structural engineers to inspect the roof. They have not
paid service charges since 2019, rejected all pre-funding and loan proposals, and insisted works wait until the freehold transfers. This position has been confirmed by their solicitor.
We proposed multiple alternatives, including full delegation of the roof works. All were ignored. Our latest email of 29 May 2025 (enclosed) offered four clear options.
The reply? “We do not consider it necessary to answer the other points you make on an open basis.”
It is disingenuous for Mr Kallis to now present a crisis. His clients blocked every effort to remedy it. The portrayal of a negligent landlord is false. We have repeatedly
tried to find a reasonable solution; every attempt has been rejected or ignored.
The Real Question Before the Court
The true issue before the Court is narrow: the vesting application was premature, and material acquisition terms remain unresolved. None of Mr Kallis’s evidence addresses
these defects. Neither of his witness statements engages with the real issue.
This narrative of urgency appears designed to manipulate listing priorities and apply pressure on litigants in person. We consider it a discreditable use of the process.
We respectfully submit that this hearing has been accelerated not on the basis of evidence or law, but on inflammatory rhetoric: a stream of allegations, unsupported
and often previously dismissed. We ask the Court to consider whether this matter truly warrants such prioritisation, and whether a return to the original timetable – allowing for proper attendance and preparation – would better serve justice.
Yours faithfully,
Davy Thielens
on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd