Every date: what happened, what was said, what was done — with the PDFs, photos, videos and audio that prove it (including Joe Iannotta / Tyler emails, Ella Carole, Lucas Bayle, Matt Clark, lease, counterclaim).
Evidenced timeline
Every entry: what happened, what was said, what was done, then the PDFs / photos / videos that prove it. Open any exhibit in the on-page window.
Lease & lock-outs
Roof leak — Flexspace breaks Clause 5.1
Landlord repair duty breached; warehouse flooded
What happened
Roof leak floods the warehouse and damages servers/hardware. Under Clause 5.1 Flexspace must maintain the structure. They do not fix it.
What was said
Repeated contact from Bosecom about the unresolved leak from Oct 2022 into 2023 — no effective landlord action.
What was done
Business continues under water damage while waiting for landlord repairs that never come.
First lock-out — Flexspace breaks own lease (forfeiture #1)
Steel sheet; alleged forfeiture; then accuse break-in
What happened
Entrance blocked with a steel sheet. Centre manager claims forfeiture for rent. Rent is paid the same day. Freeths then email accusing a break-in — the trespass theory later used personally against Rob.
What was said
Flexspace/Freeths: lease forfeited; allegation of breaking into the premises.
June rent is paid seeking clarity. Flexspace later refunds June (£3,403.02), then refunds April/May (£6,896.40) — after first only refunding June, which itself implied those months were still on foot.
What was said
Flexspace refund correspondence tries to shore up a 26 Apr forfeiture narrative after the fact.
What was done
Money taken, then money returned — classic waiver / inconsistency evidence.
Bosecom leaves — forced out by disrepair / lock-outs
Vacate after landlord made premises unusable
What happened
Lacking usable space after leaks, lock-outs and safety failures, Bosecom moves equipment to storage and leaves (~5–6 July 2023). Quiet enjoyment destroyed by the landlord.
What was said
Delayed Freeths response on fire-escape locks; still no real remedy for the trading damage.
What was done
Premises abandoned because Flexspace made them unusable — not because Bosecom chose to trespass.
Evidence
PDF
Defence Ex 13 — Removal of exit/entrance restrictions
After we left — Flexspace sues for possession / trespass
Claim filed once Bosecom had already vacated
What happened
Sealed claim and particulars: Flexspace No 2 LLP v Bosecom Ltd & Ravi Kumar Bose — possession founded on trespass / forfeiture narrative, including personal claim against Rob despite Guarantor: NONE on the lease.
What was said
Claimant alleges trespass and seeks possession/judgment against company and director personally.
What was done
Claim issued 5 Jul 2023 with Tyler witness statement — after Bosecom had already been forced out.
Evidence
DOC
Simon Sinnatt — Particulars of Claim (Word original)
1cor barrister Particulars of Claim + Schedule of Loss
What happened
Barrister Simon Sinnatt (1cor) drafted Bosecom Limited v Flexspace No.2 LLP Particulars of Claim — the substantive counterclaim/claim pack pleading landlord lease breaches and losses, with Schedule of Loss.
What was said
Sinnatt draft: Bosecom as Claimant against Flexspace for breaches of the 18 Oct 2019 lease (repairs, common parts, quiet enjoyment) and resulting trading losses.
What was done
Claim pack for Simon includes Particulars of Claim, Schedule of Loss, and supporting invoice schedule.
Evidence
DOC
Simon Sinnatt — Particulars of Claim (Word original)
Incorrect case number — procedural ground to stop petition
What happened
Notice of a winding-up petition arrives with the wrong case number. Petitioner later admits incorrect service. Correct petition still not properly served to the registered address.
What was said
Petitioner/virtual office correspondence about winding-up; admission of wrong service.
What was done
Bank freeze and hearing path follow despite defective service.
Attendance at winding-up hearing with counterclaim prepared. Winding-up would kill the company’s standing to pursue Flexspace for the landlord’s own breaches.
What was said
Court needs link between petition debt and forfeiture/lease dispute for a stay.
What was done
Adjournments; evidence packs assembled for Simon / Manchester track.
Evidence
DOC
Simon Sinnatt — Particulars of Claim (Word original)
Judge indicates stay needs evidence linking the petition to the forfeiture and lease dispute — exactly the evidenced lock-out / waiver / counterclaim story.
What was said
Court: show the connection or the petition proceeds.
What was done
Packs prepared; father’s medical emergency also drives adjournment context.
Petition handed in person at Hanwell. June 2025 hearing attended and contested. Strong later point is notice of the adjourned Feb 2026 date — not denial of the petition itself.
What was said
Petitioner proceeds on personal judgment debt from Flexspace path.
What was done
Attendance in June 2025; no fixed new date given then.
The path from Judge Hunt’s trial directions to summary judgment, set-aside, and appeal is riddled with Civil Procedure Rule breaches and solicitor failure.
CPR 1.1 — overriding objective
Summary judgment after Hunt ordered trial, solicitor non-attendance, and ex parte contact with the judge cut across dealing with the case justly.
CPR 3.1(7) — vary or revoke own orders
At the 29 Jan 2025 N244 hearing, claimant’s counsel asserted there was no power to revisit orders; the court adopted that incorrect framing.
CPR 3.10 — correcting procedural errors
N244 was accepted under CPR 3.10, then later treated as if N161 were required — contradicting the court’s own prior acceptance.
CPR 13.3 — setting aside judgment
Delay driven by solicitor negligence. Real prospect of defence had already been recognised by Judge Hunt.
CPR 24.2 — summary judgment thresholds
Genuine disputes of fact (lock-outs, rent accepted then refunded, no guarantor, unproven trespass) were not tried.
CPR 16.4 — personal liability without basis
Lease: Guarantor NONE. Personal judgment via unevidenced trespass theory is procedurally improper.
CPR 52 — appeal window lost to negligence
Appeal deadline missed because the solicitor never advised of appeal/set-aside options.
CPR 5.4C / 39.8 — ex parte contact
Claimant counsel contacted Judge Gaunt outside court before 29 Jan 2025; acknowledged but not disclosed to the defendant.
Read it plainly: Flexspace broke their own lease duties, locked Bosecom out twice, accepted rent after alleged forfeiture, later refunded that rent to rewrite the story — and only after Bosecom had already left did they sue for possession/trespass. Winding-up on that debt path would destroy the company’s counterclaim.
1. Flexspace broke the lease first (twice on repairs)
Clause 5.1 / 5.3: roof leaks, electrical non-compliance, fire/safety failures. They created the crisis, then treated rent withholding on advice as a clean forfeiture excuse.
2. Lock-out #1 (26 Apr 2023) — broke their own forfeiture rules
Steel-sheet lock-out; rent paid same day; Freeths allege break-in. Grace period / notice fairness ignored.
3. They accepted monies after alleged forfeiture
May rent was paid and taken. A landlord who keeps rent after claiming the lease is dead waives a clean forfeiture.
4. They refunded monies to rewrite the narrative
June refunded first (£3,403.02), then April/May (£6,896.40). Refunding only June first implied April/May were still on foot — then the double refund tried to shore up a 26 Apr story after the fact.
5. Lock-out #2 (10–11 Jun 2023) — broke the lease again
Second lock-out inside the Clause 9.1 10-day period. Police: no legal notices. Video and photos prove it.
6. After we left — they sued for trespass
Bosecom vacated ~5–6 July because the unit was unusable. Claim issued 5 July for possession/trespass — including personally against Rob despite Guarantor: NONE. You cannot force someone out, then brand them a trespasser to wind the company up.
7. The counterclaim exceeds / offsets the petition narrative
Particulars of Counterclaim plead the landlord breaches and losses. Winding-up would kill Bosecom’s standing to pursue that claim — irreparable prejudice.
8. Wrong petition service on top
Incorrect winding-up case number served; petitioner admitted error; proper service still failed. Procedural ground alone to stop the petition.
Personal bankruptcy BKT7280867 should be annulled. It rests on an unfair personal judgment from a company lease with no guarantor, and there was no effective notice of the 24 February 2026 Luton hearing.
No personal guarantee
Lease Guarantor: NONE. Personal bankruptcy from a company-lease judgment via unevidenced trespass is unfair.
No effective notice of 24 Feb 2026
Fearnley order emailed to unused administrator@; then to compromised MSN. Sealed order not received by email.
Petition hearing was attended — the later date was not notified
June 2025 hearing attended. The defect is notice of the adjourned Luton date that produced the order.
Ability to clear the debt
Annulment pack includes ability-to-pay evidence. Bankruptcy is not necessary where the hearing was missed without effective notice.
Cascade from Flexspace’s own breaches
Personal insolvency is the end of a chain that starts with landlord disrepair, double lock-out, rent accepted then refunded, then a trespass claim after we left.
Supporting evidence
PDF
Full annulment evidence bundle (headers / service)