Exposed: The Dirty Tricks Burnetts Solicitors Use to Illegally Evict Tenants!

What would an engineered forfeiture mean?

A commercial tenant may experience a lockout as the end point of a process designed to manufacture default. Payments may have been rejected, rent figures disputed and communications ignored before the landlord changed the locks. That sequence can justify close scrutiny. It does not, without more, establish deliberate manipulation.

An engineered forfeiture allegation implies more than error. It suggests that a landlord or adviser intentionally created, preserved or exaggerated the conditions needed to terminate the lease. The proof would ordinarily need to show a valid payment or credit, knowledge of it, a decision to disregard or reverse it, and a connection between that decision and the intended forfeiture.

Alternative explanations must also be tested. A payment may have been rejected because it was conditional, late, made by the wrong person, allocated to the wrong period, insufficient to discharge the default or tendered after the landlord had elected to forfeit. A deposit may not have been contractually available for rent. A payment to a former landlord may or may not discharge the current landlord’s account.

The legal gateway to re-entry

Peaceful re-entry is not available merely because a landlord asserts that rent is overdue. The lease must reserve a right of re-entry or forfeiture, the relevant contractual conditions must have occurred and the landlord must not have waived the right relied upon.

The first document is therefore the executed lease, including variations, side letters and any assignment or transfer documents. The forfeiture clause may specify a grace period, identify which sums count as rent and distinguish non-payment from other breaches. The landlord’s title and the identity of the tenant also need to be clear.

Where the breach is not non-payment of rent, section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 may require a notice identifying the breach, requiring remedy where it is capable of remedy and requiring compensation where appropriate. Rent arrears require a separate analysis of the lease, payment history, waiver and relief.

The notice and pre-action distinction

The supplied draft treats the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols as though it were a mandatory notice stage before peaceful re-entry. That overstates its role.

The Practice Direction governs the steps ordinarily expected before civil proceedings where no specific pre-action protocol applies. It encourages exchange of information, narrowing of issues and consideration of settlement. It can affect case management and costs if proceedings follow. It does not itself create the contractual right to forfeit or operate as a universal precondition to a self-help re-entry.

The legally decisive notice may instead arise from the lease or section 146. The urgency of a possession or injunction dispute can also affect what pre-action exchange is proportionate. A failure to answer correspondence may be relevant to reasonableness, costs, evidence and professional conduct, but it should not automatically be described as making the forfeiture void.

Returned rent and payment treatment

A returned payment can be central evidence because it reveals a deliberate choice not to retain the money. The legal effect depends on the timing, terms and reason for that choice.

The record should identify when the payment was sent, when it cleared, what reference accompanied it, which period it was intended to cover and whether any condition was attached. If the money was returned, the decision-maker, date, stated reason and instructions should be recorded. If it remained in a client account temporarily, the ledger should show how it was held and when it moved.

Rejecting payment is not inherently improper. A landlord may wish to avoid conduct capable of affirming the lease after learning of a breach. The legal risk arises where the payment should have reduced the alleged arrears before any right to forfeit arose, where the stated reason is inconsistent with the lease or prior practice, or where internal communications show that rejection was intended to create a default that did not otherwise exist.

Proving the arrears figure

An arrears figure should be capable of reconciliation from source documents. It is not enough to repeat a total from a client instruction if material payments, credits or ownership changes are in dispute.

The schedule should separate principal rent, VAT, service charge, insurance rent, interest, legal costs and any other sum. It should identify each due date, invoice, credit, receipt and allocation. Where the property changed hands, the completion statement and rent apportionment may determine which landlord was entitled to which payment.

A deposit requires its own contractual analysis. A tenant cannot assume that the landlord must automatically apply a deposit to current rent. Equally, the landlord should not describe a sum as irrecoverably unpaid while relying on a contractual mechanism that already applies a credit or discharge.

Misrepresentation is not established merely because the parties calculate the balance differently. The concern becomes stronger where primary records contradict the stated figure, the discrepancy is clearly raised before re-entry and the figure is repeated without inquiry or correction.

Former clients and confidential information

The fact that a firm previously drafted a Will or advised a person does not create a permanent prohibition on acting for anyone with an adverse interest. The current SRA rules focus on conflicts, confidentiality and material information rather than a general continuing fiduciary veto over all later instructions.

A firm must keep current and former client affairs confidential. It must not act for a client whose interest is adverse to a current or former client where the firm holds confidential information material to the new matter, unless effective measures remove any real risk of disclosure or the former client gives informed written consent.

The relevant questions are therefore specific. What information did the Will file contain about the business, lease, ownership, succession or financial position? Was that information material to the landlord’s forfeiture strategy? Could the later team access it? What conflict search and risk assessment were completed?

A reference to the business in a Will may be commercially important without being material confidential information for the later dispute. Conversely, the earlier file may contain instructions or documents directly relevant to the asset, occupancy or payment history. The answer lies in the records, not the label attached to the earlier retainer.

Solicitor conduct in a forfeiture dispute

A solicitor may act firmly for a landlord and advise against accepting money where acceptance could prejudice the client’s intended election. Robust representation is not misconduct. The boundary is crossed where the lawyer misleads, takes unfair advantage, misuses evidence or advances a factual position that is not properly arguable.

The SRA Code makes each solicitor personally accountable for compliance and requires decisions to be justifiable. It prohibits misleading clients, courts or others by act, omission or complicity. It also prohibits evidence misuse and requires assertions and representations to be properly arguable.

Those rules make the state of knowledge important. Did the solicitor receive the bank statement, payment confirmation or ownership document? Was a contradiction identified? Did the solicitor verify the client’s ledger, seek clarification or correct the position? An inaccurate figure may be negligent or mistaken. Repeating it after receiving decisive contrary evidence may present a different regulatory issue.

The Burnetts case study

The supplied draft alleges that Burnetts Solicitors acted for a landlord seeking peaceful re-entry while holding a previous Will file connected with the tenant’s business. It alleges that payments to a previous landlord and a deposit were omitted from the arrears calculation, that proactive rent payments were returned to create a forfeiture opportunity and that correspondence identifying the discrepancy was not properly addressed. These are serious allegations. The draft does not establish them.

A proper review would begin with the lease, landlord transfer documents, complete rent ledger, deposit deed and bank records. It would then identify each payment said to have been made, the recipient, the legal basis for crediting it and any return transaction. The Subject Access Request material may establish receipt of correspondence, but receipt alone does not establish that the tenant’s legal analysis was correct or that the firm acted dishonestly.

The former-client issue requires the original retainer and Will file, a conflict search and evidence about access to material confidential information. The professional-conduct issue requires the exact statements made by Burnetts, the information held at the time and any later correction or internal review.

Burnetts and the landlord may dispute the account, rely on a different allocation of payments, deny that the deposit reduced rent, show that payments were made to the wrong recipient or contend that the right to forfeit had already arisen. A fair publication should reflect any substantive response before naming individuals or asserting deliberate manipulation.

The evidential reconstruction

The strongest analysis is chronological. It should show the lease obligation, each due date, payment attempt, receipt, return, credit, demand, notice and decision to re-enter. The chronology should then identify who held each relevant document and when.

The re-entry event requires its own record: written instructions, attendance notes, occupancy checks, photographs, notices left, access-control records and an inventory of goods. Relief, re-letting and any professional complaint require separate timelines.

Documents should be classified by what they prove. A bank statement may prove payment left the tenant’s account but not that it reached the correct landlord. A Subject Access Request disclosure may prove that an email existed in the firm’s system but not who read it. A Will may prove that a business was mentioned but not that confidential information from the file was material to the forfeiture.

The available routes

A tenant locked out of commercial premises may need urgent specialist advice on relief from forfeiture, access to goods and documents, interim relief and preservation of evidence. Civil Procedure Rule 55 applies to claims by tenants seeking relief from forfeiture. Delay can alter the commercial and third-party position even where the merits remain disputed.

A claim that the landlord or its agents caused loss may engage contract, property law, tort, restitution or other remedies depending on the facts. A complaint about a solicitor’s service ordinarily begins with the firm and may later fall within the Legal Ombudsman’s jurisdiction if eligibility requirements are met. Serious professional-conduct concerns may be reported to the SRA.

Those routes serve different purposes. Relief may restore the lease. Damages may compensate loss. A regulator may investigate conduct but will not ordinarily determine the whole property dispute. A service complaint may address communication or complaint handling without resolving the validity of forfeiture.

The route should follow the objective and the evidence rather than the intensity of the allegation.