Arthur-v-Layte PZ200604  


See below regarding


1 July 2002 - Returning the items removed from the shop (52 Fore Street Redruth) on 2 November 2001


17 July 2002 - Encounter between J Layte and Mr Arthur outside 52 Fore Street




A photo of the Fabric Rolling Machine (FRM) as removed from 52 Fore Street on 10 August 2003.

There is nothing on it that looks like the "electric cutter" Mr Arthur mentions in his 4 November 2004 Application

Perhaps Mr Arthur has this cutter or somebody else with a key stole it?


This machine was a small part of the settlement made on 14 June 2002 between Mr Arthur and our joint tenant who owed us about 13,000 (18 months unpaid rent and insurance (16,000 less 3,000 paid post 2 November 2001)).


Mr Arthur had been given the task of trying to recover the unpaid rent for the benefit of both landlords - not just the Arthurs - The Arthurs only owned 50% of the shop.


Instead of telling us (the joint landlord) about the settlement Mr Arthur phoned that evening and asked for our written permission to clear the shop of the "tenant's" property whilst he continue to negotiate with him regarding the "outstanding rent". At the time he asked it was actually  no longer the tenant's property of course but we didn't know that and faxed permission at 20:51 PM.




1 July 2002  Returning the items removed from the shop (52 Fore Street Redruth) on 2 November 2001

Photo (1 July 2002) of Mr Lanyon returning the ladder and fire extinguisher that Mr Arthur had given him in payment for acting as an independent witness when we confiscated the tenants property in lieu of unpaid rent on 2 November 2001.

Mr Arthur had insisted the items be returned because they belonged to the tenant and if we did not then it would be theft.

Mr Arthur said he was negotiating with Mr Potts (the tenant according to Mr Arthur) for payment of the outstanding rent debt of about 13,000. Mr Arthur said he thought the tenant was about to settle for the full amount and the settlement may be jeopardized if these items were not returned to the shop.

In fact Mr Arthur had settled with the true tenants on 14 June 2002 but had not told Mr and Mrs Layte (Joint landlords) about this.

On 15 July 2002 Mr Arthur entered his Claim against the Laytes. Basically a valuation dispute in that the Arthurs valued the shop at under half what the Layte's estate agent had. At the time (July 2002) the Laytes were not aware that Mrs Arthur had offered to sell the shop to a Mr Everard for the same low figure as their valuation some two years previously.



17 July 2002 - Encounter between J Layte and Mr Arthur outside 52 Fore Street

By June 2002 Mr Arthur had been negotiating with our tenant for non payment of about 13,000 rent for about 8 months. He had reported that the tenant (who Mr Arthur had said was a Mr Potts) had offered 10,000 towards the 13,000 owed provided we release his stock, fixtures and fittings that we were holding in our shop in lieu of the outstanding rent. Mr Arthur subsequently reported that the tenant had increased his offer to 11,000. On 7 June 2002 we suggested Mr Arthur accept this settlement because the main issue was to sell the shop before the expected price crash and the estate agents we had consulted were of the opinion the shop would be easier to sell empty.

On 14 June 2002 Mr Arthur received this FAX confirmation of the verbal settlement from the solicitors acting for the tenants but did not inform us, the joint landlords, of the fact that our tenants had settled the rent debt.

On the evening of the 14 June 2002 Mr Arthur phoned. He did not mention the settlement offer made earlier in the day but pretended he was still negotiating with the tenant for more than the 11,000 he had (apparently) already offered towards the 13,000 debt. We again suggested we (the landlords) accept the offer of 11,000 and let the tenant clear the shop of his property to facilitate the sale. Mr Arthur suggested he would be willing to pay us 50% of the 11,000 offered out of his own pocket and transfer the tenant's property to a building he owned whilst he continue to negotiate the extra 2,000 providing we give permission in writing that we will forfeit our half of any extra monies he may receive from the tenant. Unaware of the settlement we faxed Mr Arthur the permission he had requested.

At the end of June 2002 Mr Arthur said he thought the tenant was about to settle for the full outstanding rent arrears of 13,000 and J Layte and Mr Lanyon must return the items removed on 2 November 2001 because they belonged to Potts under his tenancy otherwise it would be theft. The items were returned to the shop on 1 July 2002.

On 10 July 2002, Mr Arthur and another were witnessed clearing the shop through the alleyway double doors to the left of the shop. Subsequent inspection revealed he had not removed the FRM, some fire extinguishers,  and about two truck loads of rubbish. We did not try and stop him clearing the shop as we were still not aware of the settlement and assumed Mr Arthur was doing what we had given him permission to do on the evening of 14 June 2002 and we would soon receive our half of 11,000.

Mr Arthur did not pay us the money he had promised and on encountering him outside the shop on 17 July 2002 J Layte asked if Mr Potts had settled or not? And if he had where was our half of the settlement? Mr Arthur refused to reply. J Layte asked Mr Arthur for the new address or telephone number of Mr Potts so that he could check for himself. Mr Arthur refused to reply and started walking up the street towards Sandy Lane. After about a quarter mile he positioned himself in front of a CCTV camera in Bradfords builders merchants inviting the obvious reaction. J Layte, there being no handy child's scooter nearby, took a photo instead.

The next day (On 18 July 2002) the Laytes wrote to Mr Potts at his last known address

On 19 July 2002 Mr Potts phoned to say he was not the tenant and that Mr Arthur and the true tenants had settled some five weeks ago which he thought was for 10,000 + the entire contents of the shop. He confirmed that he was unaware of us and that Mr Arthur had told him, Mr Farr and Mr Amor that he was the sole owner of the shop.

Our solicitor (employed to act in Defence of Mr Arthur's valuation dispute Claim) entered a counterclaim for the return of our 50% of the 10,000 and our 50% of the contents unlawfully removed from the shop. A list of the contents was given to our solicitor at the time. A copy of this list was attached to the 4 February 2004 letter to Mr Arthur (CC The Police). Note it mentions the FRM as not having been removed by Mr Arthur and thus not part of our counterclaim.

Despite Mr Arthur's many denials the counterclaim was found in the Defendant's favour.

More to follow 23/4/12