David Morgan, Managing Director, Cookseys DMP

Third-party liability is fertile ground for solicitors - and it's expensive. The pubco was a third party to the contract, its solicitors did not challenge the transfer of title and the Land Registry has no record of the rent amendment. The pubco required £12,000 rent from May 2006 and was quite content to accept that rent until the amount increased to £14,000 in August 2006.

The "mistake" was recognised in May 2007 - nine months after the date of increase. However, the pubco has demanded (and accepted) an increased rent for those nine months. So it was content with the arrangement. A document's

existence is denied by the direct party to the sales contract - the previous lessee. You must establish proof of the

pubco's claim, which only it can supply. You need:

1. Supporting correspondence from the pubco confirming rent variation

2. The detail of a formal rent review memorandum - and whether it was signed by both parties

3. Confirmation of whether the signatures were witnessed

Unless this information is available, the pubco has no valid claim: a "lease amendment" could be any old piece of paper. An unwitnessed signature is not very persuasive in law. The onus is on the pubco to prove its case - not on you to defend the previous lessee. I don't know whether you have been taken for a ride - and if so by whom - until the burden of proof is established. It is pointless pursuing the previous lessee - your attention must focus on the pubco. It is

refusing to meet you, but don't pay the increased rent until the pubco's burden of proof has been established. If it is, a meeting to clear the air will be essential. Can you rescind the contract? Probably not. Is it worth pursuing the previous lessee? I don't think so, as it would be a waste of money if she is abroad and nearing bankruptcy.