The contract and it’s flaws.
 

1. Length of lease:
 

The length of the lease was meant to be a maximum of 18 years, to our horror he gave 75 years, in law that gives the rights to the tenant and not the landlord. This was done by my own solicitor to help the developer. 
 

In an 18 year lease, the developer wouldn’t have been able to contaminate the land but giving 75 years means he can do basically anything he wanted. He dumped 26,000 tons of highly toxic waste on the land, the experts says it has a toxic lifespan of 70 years before it comes to a point that it’s not dangerous to animals and fauna.
 

2. The covenant:
 

A covenant was put on one of the lakes, that meant that no boats or marinas were to be built on it. This was an established wildlife area and had been for at least 100 years. 
 

The covenant was taken off for £1, that in itself caused me to lose an argument where the developer/tenant was going to build a second marina on the site. This cost me £260,000 because the right had been removed. The evidence to back it up, there was no planning submitted or permission from the council, there was also no permission from the Canal and River Trust, but he was awarded the money anyway. 
 

The day this was awarded at court, we were unable to attend due to Joan’s serious health problems. We had arranged for a gentleman to attend and stand on our behalf, but this gentleman had been threatened by the developer through a barrage of emails and other correspondence to put as much pressure on him not to attend. That left the developer a free hand to fabricate a story of developing the site.
 

3. The rent:
 

The site was a commercial site and would remain so. The contract was written so that the first three years would be a commercial rent of £540 per acre. Then, after that, it would become agricultural and be reduced to a ridiculous £70 per acre for the remaining 72 years!
 

4. The map:
 

Before I was coerced into signing the contract, I was asked if the boundaries could be moved closer to the house than was first discussed, this was to help the developer get planning permission for the car park. The council would only agree if the car park was as close to the drive as possible. I declined, I didn’t want a car park right outside my home. I asked for the area to be to the original map. 
 

When my solicitor made me sign the contract, the map was missing although it should have been signed along with the contract. 
 

When the developer obtained the contract from my solicitor, my solicitors secretary handed it to him with the map, this is totally wrong in law.

 

When I had to sell the land, the contract made the land worthless. It was valued before it was touched for £300,000 of which we had interest from buyers. I was willing to accept £250,000 but I was forced in court to sell it to the developer who would only pay £155,000 which was most unfair.