email sent from us to the company solicitor

This message was intended for Howard Parkinson as it depicts Tim Sargeant’ fraudulent behaviour along with laying much of the blame at Howard Parkinson’s door. Please pass it on or evaluate yourself and we shall do as we see fit with the investors and shareholders of that company always remembering the implications of section 12 of the Fraud Act 2006 with special enthesis being put on Simon Marner’s actions and behaviour.

Howard..... I shall be as brief as I can without getting away from the issue of concern which are detailed in the attached emails.

Unfortunately Tim’s offer of settlement falls far short of what we would anticipate the true figure to be, just the overage losses that are referred to would have been in excess of £400k albeit your colleague has claimed that  C&C had not reneged on the contractual obligations whilst Tim claims that he did not get planning consent for sufficient dwellings to enact the deal....  well the contract stipulated 2No. Dwellings and that is exactly what they got consent for, 2 dwellings so what is it that we are missing. Treat that as the first question and see if you can come up with something that is financially more realistic at the same time.

So the second point is contained in the 2nd email. 

Tim has stated in the 4th para “We even gave you a license to keep pigs” which is interesting because the Granting of the License for us to keep pigs in the building was what set everything down the litigation road and left us banging on the doors of the Supreme Court of Appeal and cost us personally the best part of a million pounds in cold cash. 

I can ask the question now as I have made a point of  now establishing the answer so how the hell can anyone grant a license that contradicts the restrictive covenant that applies to that building when it comes under the banner of being a Negative Covenant which goes with the land/property that it refers to and no matter how many times that property changes hands the RC remains in force unless the persons involved in forming and setting that RC up each own the property concerned and have had the matter sanctioned by the Land Tribunal. 

The Oven’s had in turn contacted TS and asked him for help as we were keeping pigs in the building to which TS wrote back and told them that we had a Restrictive Covenant on the building precluding us from keeping agricultural livestock in that building (albeit TS denied passing that information on  himself and informed me that you, H P, had done so without his knowledge, which for the record we do not believe to be the case ) 

This is where it got interesting TS then proposed selling us the benefit of the RC and provided us with a formula to evaluate and determine a price that C&C would want, which came out at £200K. When we failed in the first court appearance TS demanded that we should argue the matter or he would sue us for the £200k that we had cost C&C..... lets leave that there, it is all well documented and constitutes the criminal element of fraud. 

The point is that without the events surrounding TS behaviour with his attempts at selling us the RC we would never have suffered all of those years of grief and lost all of that money when you cant trade restrictive covenants nor can you make threats to sue if we don’t comply with the demands being made.

We want our 4 metre strip of land returned to us in the condition it would have been 28 days after the party wall building was dismantled.... if it means that I have to send the Oven’s the attached email depicting TS statement of granting us a license then I will not hesitate to do so as the Oven’s themselves have suffered losses which they will no doubt want to recoup.

The party wall building has been dismantled for 10 years But we are losing £1,000 every week in not having our land returned whilst Simon Marner has made himself look like an inadequate fool, we in turn intend to ask the investors and shareholders in C&C how can they put their trust in Simon Marner in multi million pound deals when he is clearly someone that is not competent and capable of evaluating our simple issue over the boundary line and fencing matters, he is showing himself to be “not fit for the purpose”. 

Regards

David Jones

From: David Jones
Sent: 03 July 2020 11:26
To: Tim Sargeant; Simon Marner
Cc: Howard Parkinson
Subject: Seeking Closure and Redeem yourself.

Mr Marner...... let us give you the opportunity to redeem yourself given that you are not doing to good up unto now.

Mr Sargeant is emphatic in laying the blame at my door and makes it very clear that he considers that I had an obligation to oversee the  City & Country contract which they had with the Nicol family to erect the Nicol’s contracted 2 metre high close boarded fence..... we would ask on what basis that assumption and claim are being made.

We strongly refute that claim and ask why would be be involved in something that is not of our concern. We are prepared to give you our guaranteed assurance that if you can provide anything to substantiate that claim we will never mention it again and remove any such claims form your firm in connection with the events that came fm this matter.

Further to that in an attempt to close down even further we have the matter of what we consider to be the reneged contractual obligations surrounding the barns themselves. 

Tim Sargeant claims that they required planning approval for more than two properties to make it viable..... but the contract specified 2 No dwellings to enact the works to be carried out and the overage payment scheduled.

We would ask you to show us on what basis you can make that claim, the contract was for 2 No dwelling, the planning approval was for 2  dwellings as to the application submitted and exactly what was asked for so how can there be any argument and if there is please tell us what it is so that we can all move on. Albeit C&C went back with  a further application to increase the consent to 3 No dwellings but that was never part of our contract with your firm. 

If you can show us that you have not reneged on the contractual obligation built around and reliant on the planning consent for the conversion of 2 dwelling  we have no argument and we are prepared to put this matter down and walk away  just as with the first offering.

You can put both matter to bed, take away any argument and redeem yourself.

Regards

David Jones 

Oaklands