Page 52 - Combined file Solheim

APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF A M KENZIE FRIEND
C
PART 8: DETAILED COMMENTS
13. DAMAGE TO LPJS
LPJS contends that for the nine years the Claimant lived in Nutley Place he reimbursed her an
average of £1,200 a month resulting in a significant underpayment. He carried out defective DIY
projects that now have to be replaced and has reclaimed gifts. He has harassed her and her
family and shown bad faith throughout. He has also defamed LPJS to friends to whom she
introduced him.

231. When the Claimant talked his way into Nutley Place he was almost penniless. He had
just divorced, used most of the equity in his former marital home to rehouse his ex-wife,
to pay off debts but to buy himself an expensive Range Rover. He was effectively
homeless. LPJS’s maintenance was £6,209 a month when she met the Claimant and was
reduced to £4,400 after he moved into Nutley Place.

232. For the 9 years that the Claimant lived in Nutley Place he paid an average of between
£1,000 and £1,200 a month for accommodation, food, car insurance et cetera. LPJS
contends that he underpaid his share of living expenses by a minimum of £163,628.00.

233. The Claimant’s duplicity induced LPJS to accept the derisory settlement with APMS
which cost her £765,000 in lifetime maintenance.

234. LPJS believes that the financial balance between the Claimant’s position is firmly in her
favour at £311,464.00 as follows::

Element Claimant LPJS

Loans to APMS on his figures 189 £80,164.00
Mortgage/Gift £500,000.00
Fields £35,000.00
Underpayment living costs £163,628.00
Loss of maintenance £765,000.00
TOTALS £617,164.00 £928,628.00

235. LPJS was advised by her solicitors not to consider any Part 36 offer until the
provenance of the Claimant’s funds was established. This is still the case. Her main fear is
that whatever the Courts orders in her favour will be frozen by Diamond Insurance or
reversed by other insurers. This is why she urges the Court to examine the provenance of
the Claimant’s funds.

236. MJC made multiple attempts to meet the Claimant to see if a resolution could be
found. The Claimant refused to meet, preferring to hide behind his solicitors and
threatening draconian legal action that would result in LPJS and her children becoming
homeless.

189 Which are not agreed
Bates Number Bates No052 46 | Pa ge