Written by This chronology sets out the author’s account of a dispute involving Balliol Property Services, Burnetts Solicitors LLP, Europark Properties and the collapse of Flashback Toys Ltd. The core issue is not one isolated disagreement. It is the alleged pattern: disputed arrears, unclear lease status, restricted access, unanswered correspondence, contested data-access handling and the cumulative effect on a small business.
Publication snapshot
- This article presents a personal chronology of a commercial lease and data-protection dispute.
- The account concerns alleged rent-account inconsistencies, a disputed lockout, restricted access to stock and later SAR handling issues.
- The author says the dispute caused serious business, financial and wellbeing consequences.
- The chronology is framed as a public-interest case study, not as a court finding or regulatory determination.
- The wider issue is how small businesses experience opacity, delay and procedural pressure when facing better-resourced counterparties.
Why this chronology matters
The previous article addressed the author’s allegation that GDPR procedures were used by Balliol Property Services and Burnetts Solicitors LLP in a way that obstructed access to information. This article steps back and sets out the wider chronology that led to that dispute.
The author’s case is that the data-access issue cannot be understood in isolation. It followed a longer sequence involving disputed arrears, an alleged communication breakdown, a contested lockout, access restrictions, unresolved lease issues, rejected ADR and later contradictory SAR handling.
The purpose of publishing the chronology is not to attribute personal blame to individuals. It is to show how procedural decisions by organisations can accumulate into a dispute that becomes difficult for a small business owner to navigate, challenge or resolve.
The initial professional relationship
The chronology begins in April 2022, when Burnetts Solicitors assisted the author with drafting and storing a Will. In that document, the author says Flashback Toys Ltd was identified as a significant asset for the author’s children.
That earlier professional relationship later became relevant to the author’s concerns. When Burnetts acted for Balliol Property Services in the dispute involving the business premises, the author considered there to be at least an appearance issue requiring careful handling.
The article does not make a finding that Burnetts acted despite an actual conflict. The point is narrower: where a solicitor has previously acted for an individual in relation to personal estate planning, and later appears in a dispute affecting a business asset that individual regards as important, the perception of conflict and fairness can become part of the wider accountability concern.
Disputed arrears and mixed signals about the lease
By July 2023, the author says correspondence had begun with Balliol Property Services, acting on behalf of Europark Properties, in relation to Unit 33, Lillyhall Business Centre. The issues raised included disputed rent arrears, an unreturned deposit, allocation of payments, electrical safety certificate responsibilities and Equality Act concerns.
The author’s account is that responses were either absent or insufficient, leaving important issues unresolved. In mid-August 2023, Burnetts, acting for BPS, sent notice alleging rent arrears. The author says that the figure did not properly account for the deposit and a rent payment that had been wrongly allocated.
Between August and October 2023, the author says BPS accepted rent and service charge payments. The author’s position is that this conduct appeared inconsistent with any later claim that the lease had been forfeited. That is a legal issue requiring careful advice, because waiver, forfeiture and rent acceptance can be fact-sensitive.
How uncertainty developed
-
1
The author disputed the arrears calculation and says relevant payment information was not properly addressed.
-
2
Payments were allegedly accepted during the period when the status of the lease later became contested.
-
3
A later rent payment was allegedly returned without contemporaneous explanation.
-
4
The author says these mixed signals contributed to confusion about whether the lease was still being treated as active.
The disputed lockout and access to stock
The chronology identifies 17 October 2023 as a decisive point. The author says they were unexpectedly locked out of the property without prior notice and believed, until then, that the position remained capable of resolution.
The author also says there were concerns about the property’s CCTV system and security. Those matters are not presented here as findings. They are included because they formed part of the author’s account of why the lockout had practical, evidential and legal significance.
On 25 October 2023, Burnetts, acting for BPS, allegedly proposed new lease terms while the dispute was ongoing. The author describes those negotiations as coercive because access to the premises and stock had become central to business survival.
The author further says that rent was accepted after the lockout. If accurate, that is potentially important because it may bear on the landlord’s position, the lease status and any argument about waiver or inconsistent conduct. Those issues should be assessed on the documents, payment records and legal advice rather than assumed.
The author says the lockout prevented ordinary access to stock, personal belongings and business operations.
The author says later conduct, including rent handling and notices, appeared inconsistent with the asserted position on forfeiture.
Attempts to resolve the dispute
The chronology records a series of attempts to resolve matters between November 2023 and January 2024. The author says these included pleas for access and resolution, responses that did not engage with the substantive issues, restrictive conditions for retrieving belongings, and further stalled correspondence.
The author says the lockout affected Amazon and eBay trading performance because Flashback Toys Ltd could not access inventory in the usual way. They also say the dispute affected mental health, requiring additional support and medication.
On 11 December 2023, the author issued notice of intended legal proceedings. In mid-December, BPS, through Burnetts, made a settlement offer. The author describes the offer as inadequate and says a reply setting out grievances was not meaningfully answered.
In January 2024, the author proposed ADR. The chronology states that ADR was not accepted and that this marked a missed opportunity to avoid escalation. Whether that refusal was unreasonable would depend on the content of the proposal, the parties’ positions, the evidence and any later litigation context.
The subject access dispute
In April 2024, the author submitted a Subject Access Request to BPS. The purpose was to obtain personal data and understand how the dispute had been handled. The author’s case is that BPS did not provide a compliant response within the required period and did not give a satisfactory explanation.
The chronology then describes a period from mid-2024 to November 2024 in which the SAR process became increasingly contested. The author says BPS redirected the SAR to Burnetts without consent, and that Burnetts repeatedly demanded ID verification despite extensive prior correspondence over email addresses the parties had already used.
The author’s criticism is not that ID verification is always improper. The criticism is that, on this account, ID demands were used inconsistently and without a clear explanation of why identity was genuinely in doubt.
The SAR inconsistency alleged by the author
The author says BPS and Burnetts treated identity as uncertain and required further verification before data would be provided.
The author says BPS later used the same verified email channels to send invoices and demands for payment.
If the same communication route was treated as reliable for debt pursuit but inadequate for SAR compliance, that inconsistency requires explanation.
On 13 November 2024, the author says the ICO acknowledged breaches but stopped short of issuing a compliance order. The author considered that outcome inadequate because it placed further practical burden on the requester rather than directly addressing what the author viewed as procedural misuse.
On 29 November 2024, the chronology says contradictory instructions intensified the dispute: BPS allegedly directed ID verification through Burnetts, while earlier correspondence had indicated a different route. Later the same day, the author says BPS sent sales invoices and legal-action threats to the same verified email addresses.
Business, financial and wellbeing impact
The author says the dispute had serious consequences. The alleged lockout restricted access to stock, damaged trading performance, affected online marketplace accounts and contributed to the collapse of Flashback Toys Ltd.
The chronology also records a personal impact. The author says the pressure of the dispute affected mental health, increased stress, and required additional support and medication. Those details are included to show the human cost of unresolved procedural conflict, not to invite speculation about medical causation.
The broader point is that disputes of this kind do not operate only on paper. For a small business, access to stock, clarity about rent, prompt correspondence and access to personal data can determine whether the business can continue trading.
The accountability route from here
The author’s stated aim is transparency and fair resolution. That may involve continued engagement with the ICO, review of legal options, evidence preservation, and public commentary about property-management and legal-services practices.
The strongest next step is evidential discipline. The chronology should be matched to documents: rent ledgers, bank records, notices, emails, access correspondence, CCTV records, SAR correspondence, ICO complaint materials, invoices, medical evidence and marketplace account records.
Evidence to preserve
- Lease, rent-account, deposit and service charge documents.
- All correspondence with BPS, Europark Properties and Burnetts.
- Bank records showing payments made, returned or accepted.
- Access, lockout, bailiff, key, security and CCTV-related records.
- SAR correspondence, ICO complaint papers and any response bundles.
- Business-loss evidence, including stock records, platform notices and accounts.
Issues to review
- Whether the lease was validly forfeited and whether any later conduct waived forfeiture.
- Whether access restrictions were lawful and proportionate on the evidence.
- Whether any rent, deposit or service charge calculation was wrong.
- Whether the SAR response complied with data-protection obligations.
- Whether any professional-conduct issue arises from role, communication or conflict concerns.
- Whether limitation, costs risk or evidential gaps affect any proposed claim.
This case study is therefore best understood as a call for disclosure, explanation and proper scrutiny. If the chronology is accurate, the central question is simple: why did a commercial property dispute and SAR process become so opaque, prolonged and damaging?