Victor’s Battle. Guest Blog by Lindsay Bush
How an 83-Year-Old Blind Tenant and I Navigated Legal Complexity, Procedural Failures, and Relentless Pressure
Navigating disputes with a housing association landlord is challenging at the best of times. For Victor Jackson — 83 years old, registered blind since 1988, fitted with a pacemaker, and managing lifelong medical conditions — it became something else entirely. What began as a request for transparency over service charges evolved into a prolonged legal ordeal. At times, it felt less like a process designed to resolve concerns and more like one that wore him down through delay, complexity, and persistence.
Supporting Victor through this has shown me the importance of resilience, community backing, and understanding — and enforcing — your legal rights. Even when situations feel overwhelming, procedure, vigilance, and persistence can make a difference. For landlords, it should also serve as a reminder that missed deadlines, procedural failures, and poor judgement can unravel years of claims, regardless of an organisation’s size or reputation.
Victor has lived in his flat in Leeds, West Yorkshire for more than twenty years. Despite his age, disabilities, and long tenancy, he faced escalating service charges, legal action, and repeated difficulty obtaining basic documentation — invoices and service provider contracts — that he believed he was entitled to access. I supported Victor throughout as his personal assistant, neighbour, and carer. Friends Paul, who lives on a different estate, and Stephen, from another estate, also provided vital behind-the-scenes support. Together, we supported Victor through both a First-tier Tribunal case and a County Court claim.
Two Parallel Legal Battles
What made the situation particularly difficult was having to deal with two legal processes at the same time: a First-tier Tribunal case and a separate County Court claim.
Tribunal Case
In October 2023, Victor applied to the First-tier Tribunal to challenge the reasonableness of his service charges. Because he is blind, the Tribunal allowed me to act as his representative. The hearing took place via Zoom on 2 July 2025, allowing Victor to listen in and contribute where he could.
The Tribunal issued its decision on 19 August 2025. Victor was largely unsuccessful, and while he was not convinced by the judgement, he decided not to pursue an appeal. Separately, developments in the County Court case meant that continuing with any Tribunal appeal became unnecessary.
The Tribunal did award Victor £9.14 under Section 20 for a consultation failure. The landlord told Victor that this credit had already been applied, but it did not appear on his rent statement. Only after I followed this up did the amount appear in mid-September, backdated to 2 July.
Following the Tribunal decision, the landlord applied for costs. They sought £20,764.30 — more than £15,000 for internal staff time and over £5,000 for solicitors. Those solicitors had not been disclosed to us during the proceedings and did not appear at the hearing, despite the case having run for almost two years.
County Court Claim
In November 2023, one month after Victor filed his Tribunal application, the landlord issued a separate County Court claim seeking approximately £8,000 in alleged arrears.
Because of his disability, Victor was entitled to rely on CPR 27.9 and not attend the hearing in person. I was not permitted to represent him directly, as acting as a litigation friend would have required him to attend physically, which was not possible given his medical conditions and the volume of documents involved, including photographs he could not see. The case therefore proceeded entirely on Victor’s written evidence, which I typed up on his behalf.
The hearing went ahead on 11 November 2024 with only the landlord present. The judge issued directions requiring the landlord to take certain steps by May 2025, failing which the claim would be struck out. Victor received a copy of those directions.
Those steps were not completed within the timeframe set by the court.
On 14 August 2025, Victor was notified that the claim had been struck out, effective from 3 May 2025. No appeal was lodged within the seven-day period. At that point, the claim could no longer be enforced, and the court did not examine the underlying merits.
A Crucial Discovery - The Missed Tribunal Deadline
After the Tribunal decision, the landlord submitted its costs application on 30 September 2025. Tribunal rules require such applications to be made within 28 days of the decision being sent. The deadline was 16 September.
They missed it.
It was Paul who noticed the error. We challenged the application, and the Tribunal dismissed it as out of time. No application for an extension had been made, despite the landlord having access to specialist housing legal advice. This procedural failure prevented Victor from facing a costs liability of more than £20,000.
Ongoing Pressure and Obstruction
Despite the County Court claim being struck out and the Tribunal costs application being dismissed, Victor has continued to receive letters threatening further legal action, including forfeiture. These letters have been sent directly to an 83-year-old blind man with a pacemaker and chronic health conditions.
Victor asked the landlord to stop pursuing him. At one point, the landlord’s chief executive suggested in correspondence that the County Court strike-out was the result of an administrative error. That suggestion was later contradicted in correspondence from the court.
What is particularly concerning is that solicitors named in the Tribunal costs schedule — despite not having been referenced during the proceedings or appearing at the hearing — now appear to be issuing further legal correspondence. These demands relate to sums that were the subject of a County Court claim that had already been struck out.
Victor has withheld service charges since April 2023 because, despite repeated requests, the landlord has not provided invoices or service provider contracts in a form he can access. In my view, this raises serious concerns about reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord has stated that documents can be inspected at their offices under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but this is of limited practical value to someone who is severely visually impaired, particularly where records are only available on computer systems controlled by landlord staff.
I know this from personal experience. I attended a Section 22 inspection myself, conducted in this way, and it did not resolve the issues. I was later accused of abusive behaviour — an allegation I dispute — which made it impossible for me to attend again alone or with Victor, who would not have been able to verify what documents were shown to him. I was not permitted to be accompanied by anyone else. The inconsistency of this approach had the effect of further disadvantaging Victor.
Conclusion
Victor’s experience is not unique. Stories like this are emerging across the country. They point to deeper structural issues: a culture where persistence is reframed as nuisance, where vulnerable residents are expected to navigate complex legal systems, and where procedural power often outweighs common sense.
No tenant’s ability to defend themselves should depend on luck, unpaid support, or someone spotting a missed deadline. Transparency, accessibility, and proportionality should be the default — especially when dealing with residents who are elderly, disabled, or both.
LJHA Response and Editorial Context
By Ben Jenkins, Housing Sector
Following the publication of Lindsay Bush’s account above, Leeds Jewish Housing Association (LJHA) provided a detailed written response. I appreciate the time and effort that went into it, and I also want to acknowledge the constructive meeting I had with Mark Grandfield, Chief Executive, where these issues were discussed directly.
In the interests of fairness and transparency, I am publishing LJHA’s position below. However, their original response included a mixture of factual rebuttal, legal argument, tribunal extracts, and character assessments of individuals involved. Publishing it in full and unedited would risk turning this platform into a prolonged “we said / they said” exchange and could unnecessarily expose private individuals to further dispute.
For that reason, I have summarised LJHA’s key points in good faith and included direct quotations where they are central to understanding the organisation’s position. Nothing material to their argument has been omitted, and their reliance on independent tribunal findings is accurately reflected.
LJHA’s position, in summary
LJHA strongly disputes Lindsay Bush’s account and considers her blog to be misleading and, in places, factually incorrect. The association states that it has, for several years, provided all documentation that Mr Jackson is legally entitled to receive and rejects any suggestion that invoices or records were fabricated or withheld.
LJHA emphasises that multiple First-tier Tribunal decisions have rejected allegations that its financial records were falsified or unreliable. In its response, LJHA cites tribunal findings including:
“We reject any suggestion of fabrication, or unreliability. We found the evidence of LJHA to be extremely reliable and persuasive and supported by financial documentation which gave us no cause to doubt its integrity.”
and
“The Applicant had questioned the validity and authenticity of various documents provided by the Respondent and made several allegations of impropriety on the part of the Respondent, which the Tribunal found to be wholly unsubstantiated.”
LJHA says that, informed by what it describes as repeated allegations of fraud, Mr Jackson has withheld rent and service charges for approximately two and a half years. The association states that offers of mediation were made but not accepted, and that legal proceedings were issued as a last resort.
On the County Court case, LJHA maintains that the claim was struck out due to an administrative or procedural issue connected to the Tribunal proceedings running concurrently, and that the underlying arrears were not determined by the court. LJHA states that it has since taken steps to re-engage the case.
Regarding Equality Act concerns, LJHA says that a complaint alleging failure to make reasonable adjustments was reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman and not upheld. It also states that referrals made to other regulators and bodies did not result in further investigation.
LJHA acknowledges that some genuine administrative errors occurred, including:
a £9.14 overcharge relating to communal cleaning, and
£330 connected to historic communal carpet replacement works where Section 20 consultation letters were not issued.
The association states that these errors were accepted and refunded, and that tribunal findings otherwise concluded that its service charge accounting and apportionment were reasonable and in line with lease terms.
Context for readers
Tribunal findings address specific legal questions put before them, often within narrow statutory tests. They do not necessarily resolve wider questions about accessibility, proportionality, communication, or the experience of navigating multiple legal processes while elderly or disabled.
This platform exists to examine not only outcomes, but process, power, and impact. Readers are encouraged to consider both Lindsay Bush’s account and LJHA’s response in that context.