Jason's reply to my recent note only confirms what has long been evident: your side has no intention of cooperating to move the roof replacement forward. As set out in Mario's attached email of 9 January 2023, that stance is not without consequence -- not only for the state of the building, but for your liability, individually and collectively, for any damage that results from further delay. Yet you continue to insist that no work should begin until after the freehold transfer, while simultaneously refusing to fund the repairs or permit access for inspection.
The court has accepted your fabricated urgency claim and accelerated the hearing of our set-aside application. If, against expectation, you succeed in preserving the vesting order, there will still be an appeal. At best, the freehold will not transfer before the autumn; more likely, spring 2026. The roof will remain unrepaired for yet another winter. And yet, even now, with that outcome in plain sight, your side continues to block every serious effort to proceed in parallel and prevent further damage. It is a continuation of your strategy of delay, dressed as grievance, at the expense of the building you claim to protect.
You cannot have it both ways: refusing to discuss alternatives, refusing access for our surveyors, rejecting all funding models, blocking loans, and then blaming us for the delay. You are the leaseholders of a building with a leaking roof. You have chosen inaction, and you will carry the responsibility for the consequences.
Besides conveying your non-choice, Jason's email exposes two other points. First, your supposed willingness to "settle amicably" is a fiction. Whenever a constructive proposal is made, it is met with silence or disdain. Second, it reveals the true cause of spiralling costs. We estimate your legal bill will exceed £100,000 by the end of the set-aside hearing -- already four times the premium awarded by the Tribunal. And that's without us having engaged counsel yet.
Despite repeated claims that Mario is driving up expenses, the facts point elsewhere. Jason has never once sought to explore settlement, never asked Mario what price might be acceptable to avoid proceedings, never tried to narrow the issues. Instead, he insists that everything be litigated. Even now, faced with continued uncertainty and avoidable harm, he refuses to engage in any form of resolution. That is not negotiation -- it is a crusade.
This single-minded fixation on reducing the premium ignores the broader picture: court fees, legal costs, wasted time. It discounts the real value of closure, speed, and finality. That is not cost control, it is a false economy; one that only benefits those paid to litigate.
Meanwhile the true cost of enfranchisement (the premium and legal expense combined) keeps growing -- not because of obstruction by Mario, but because your side has treated negotiation as optional, and engagement as weakness. I urge you to consider the full cost, not just the headline premium -- which is already the smaller part of the bill.
If you want to contain costs, stop sending everything to Court. Dialogue is cheaper than directions. Litigation has its place, but it should not be used as a substitute for basic communication. Since your notice was served, no attempt at negotiation has been made. Repeated invitations to "just meet and talk" -- without proposals, structure, or acknowledgement of the issues in dispute -- do not constitute meaningful negotiations, particularly in the context of ongoing litigation and serious allegations.
Our offer to talk remains open, as it always has, if approached in good faith, with a clear agenda and a genuine intent to resolve matters. But if silence is your strategy, do not be surprised if the eventual bill reflects it -- and do not expect us to carry the blame.
Yours sincerely,
Davy Thielens
for and on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd
Dear Sir
We are instructed to write to you about the email below.
Our clients and we consider a “fair premium” as you put it has already been assessed, and considered at a one day hearing. Our client will not pay anything more unless it is ordered to do so, and we see no chance of there being a further order as you are out of time to appeal in our view.
Obviously we are challenging you right to set aside the order made in February 2025, and that may end up having yet further costs consequences, but ultimately those proceedings do not affect the premium payable, they concern a vesting order and that is all.
We do not consider it necessary to answer the other points you make on an open basis below.
Yours faithfully
Merali Beedle
From: Davy Thielens <51DP@davylondon.net>
Date: Thursday, 29 May 2025 at 21:46
To: John A Galani <john@galani.com>, Kallis Jason <jkallis@meralibeedle.com>, Galani GB Karolina <karolina@galani.com>, Galvin Dominic <dgalvin@c-sr.com>, "sibelerdem@erdemhukuk.com >> Sibel Erdem" <sibelerdem@erdemhukuk.com>, Erdem Bahadır <bahadirerdem@erdemhukuk.com>, Erdem Pınar <pinarerdem@erdemhukuk.com>
Cc: Tarquin Management Ltd <51dp@davylondon.net>
Subject: Replacing the Roof – A Way Forward
Dear all,
The bedroom ceiling in John’s flat collapsed last Friday. Fortunately, nobody was injured, yet it is a wake-up call that legal arguments, objections, and pointing fingers will not fix the roof.
Holding back action until the enfranchisement concludes will be detrimental to the roof and progressively risks further damage to the building itself, to personal property, and unnecessary distress for those affected.
What we need is a practical and agreed-upon way forward, now, to avoid further damage and disruption. I have set out the options, briefly and constructively, as I see them (alternatives are welcome):
1. Tarquin manages the roof replacementYou allow us to go ahead with our preferred structural engineers. They would tender the contract in accordance with statutory consultation procedures. Leaseholders contribute their share of the cost in advance, or agree for the company to borrow the funds, in which case you would pay the interest on your share of the loan. Our structural engineers would supervise the execution. This is only workable with your full and honest cooperation and could potentially be completed by the end of the summer, although that timeline is tight and subject to factors beyond our control.
2. Leaseholders manage the processIf you are not happy with us handling of this, we can delegate the entire process to you, including appointing engineers, selecting contractors (in accordance with consultation requirements), and managing the contract. As we would still be the freeholder, we would enter into the works contract, so we would still require funds in advance or an agreement to borrow them.
3. Leaseholders act independentlySimilar to option 2, but you enter into the works contract directly, even though the freehold has not yet transferred. How this is funded is entirely your decision. If you wish Mario (as leaseholder of Flat 2) to contribute, a detailed agreement would be needed with him and with us regarding liability, timing, and costs. We are open to any concrete and sufficiently detailed proposal.
4. Do nothing until the enfranchisement is completeThe default option in case of not choosing, which is continuing to block roof replacement until the freehold has transferred, by means of you refusing inspections and financial contributions. We would discourage this option for the reasons given earlier: delaying further exposes the building and individual flats to ongoing risk and compounding costs. The ceiling collapse has made this risk immediate, not hypothetical. Yet, if you prefer to wait for the freehold to transfer before doing anything, that remains a choice.
When considering these options, I would ask you to be realistic about the implications and timescales of each. The process may well take months to resolve, whether through continued litigation or by agreement.
On the freehold premium and settlement
Lastly, when weighing options, consider the benefits of negotiating a price instead of continuing to litigation. For a fair premium, the freehold can be transferred immediately. A fair price does not mean £24,000. Nor does it have to be the upper end of our valuation. We are prepared to consider the cost savings and practical benefits of resolving this matter swiftly and with minimal or no further court involvement.
The offer has been on the table from the outset. Still, until now, your solicitor has refused to engage on price or even acknowledge the details we have repeatedly set out to explain our position, removing negotiations as a viable and cost-effective option.
If there is now a willingness to negotiate in good faith, based on proper engagement rather than posturing, we are ready to do the same.
Best regards,
Davy
for and on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd
-- for and on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd
