Don't trust the system: a company was destroyed on paper while the evidence sat unused.
Evidence doesn't matter — but it should. Flexspace · K00WD700 · BKT7280867
Lost the company on Tom Tyler’s Peterborough witness statement — from someone who never attended the Watford site — while the evidence below sat unused. Evidence doesn’t matter. But it should.
Every date below is evidenced. Read it knowing the punchline: the system later preferred Tom Tyler's Peterborough witness statement — from someone who never attended the Watford site — over this proof. Evidence doesn't matter — but it should.
Landlord repair duty breached; warehouse flooded
Roof leak floods the warehouse and damages servers/hardware. Under Clause 5.1 Flexspace must maintain the structure. They do not fix it.
Repeated contact from Bosecom about the unresolved leak from Oct 2022 into 2023 — no effective landlord action.
Business continues under water damage while waiting for landlord repairs that never come.
Further damage; rent withheld on solicitor advice
A second leak worsens the damage. Flexspace again fails repair / fire-safety / electrical inspection duties (Clause 5.3).
Legal advice: withhold rent to force landlord compliance after months of ignored repair requests.
Bosecom instructs withholding of rent; staff payment failure later becomes the forfeiture pretext.
Flexspace still invoicing as if tenancy continues
Invoice for May rent arrives while April rent status is disputed and repairs remain outstanding — inconsistent with an intended clean forfeiture.
Landlord continues ordinary rent billing.
Creates confusion about whether the lease is still on foot.
Steel sheet; alleged forfeiture; then accuse break-in
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.
Flexspace/Freeths: lease forfeited; allegation of breaking into the premises.
Rent paid immediately. Lease Clause 9.1 grace / proper notice issues ignored. No Section 146 clarity.
Landlord takes rent after alleged forfeiture
Believing the tenancy is still valid, Bosecom pays May rent. Flexspace accepts and retains that money — conduct that waives a clean forfeiture.
No clear landlord communication that the lease is dead while money is taken.
May rent paid and banked by Flexspace.
Locked inside Clause 9.1 10-day grace period
Second forfeiture attempt before the contractual 10-day rent grace period ends. Premises locked; customers blocked.
Landlord asserts forfeiture again without proper notices on the premises.
Doors locked; security prevents customer access — second invalid lock-out.
Police confirm entry; no notices posted
Police attend. No legal notices posted. Entry through main shutter permitted. Contemporaneous video of the lock-out.
Police: no notices; defendant may enter.
Footage and police letter preserved as exhibits.
They said rent was returned — only then refunded two months
June rent is paid seeking clarity. Flexspace first refunds only June (£3,403.02). They then claimed the rent had been returned. Only after we stated that — and showed they had not returned April/May — did they refund those two months (£6,896.40). Returning only June first itself implied April/May were still on foot; the later two-month refund tried to rewrite that after we called it out.
Flexspace said the rent had been returned. We stated it had not — only June was back. Only then did they refund April and May.
Money taken; June refunded first; April/May refunded only after we challenged their claim they had already returned the rent — waiver / inconsistency evidence.
Vacate after landlord made premises unusable
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.
Delayed Freeths response on fire-escape locks; still no real remedy for the trading damage.
Premises abandoned because Flexspace made them unusable — not because Bosecom chose to trespass.
Remote statement; never attended Watford; evidence unused
After Bosecom left Watford, Flexspace sued for possession/trespass on Tom Tyler's witness statement from Peterborough. He never attended the Watford site while I had the evidence. The sealed claim and personal liability path followed that paper — not a fair trial of the site proof.
Tyler (Peterborough PE2): LockFather forfeiture 26 Apr; alleges break-in; VPS 11 Jun; seeks possession against 'trespassing Defendants,' including the Second Defendant personally — without having attended the Watford warehouse.
Claim issued 5 Jul 2023 on that WS. The company was later destroyed down that chain while roof/lock-out/police/refund evidence sat unused at trial.
1cor barrister Particulars of Claim + Schedule of Loss
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.
Sinnatt draft: Bosecom as Claimant against Flexspace for breaches of the 18 Oct 2019 lease (repairs, common parts, quiet enjoyment) and resulting trading losses.
Claim pack for Simon includes Particulars of Claim, Schedule of Loss, and supporting invoice schedule.
Trial / perfected defence path indicated
Preliminary hearing: possession not granted. Judge Hunt indicates substantive issues and counterclaim merit — a trial track, not summary disposal.
Court: defendants have points warranting trial; perfected defence / counterclaim path.
Claimant later files for summary judgment anyway — cutting across those directions.
Claimant seeks CPR 24 disposal instead of trial
Having been pointed toward trial, Flexspace applies for summary judgment to avoid a full evidential hearing of the defence and counterclaim.
Claimant: no real prospect of defence.
Application listed toward May 2024; defence still not properly heard.
Correspondence address set to compromised MSN later
Hearing / order path records r.k.bose@msn.com as correspondence address — later relevant to notice failures on bankruptcy.
Court/solicitors treating MSN as the contact channel.
Eviction notices dated 19 Feb 2024 also appear in the evidence set around this period.
Litigant in person; unfavourable judgment
Solicitor absent. Litigant in person. Unfavourable summary judgment — the Tyler Peterborough narrative wins without the Watford evidence being tested.
Claimant counsel pushes SJ; key factual disputes not tried.
Judgment entered; costs/enforcement cascade begins.
Order for possession 20 May 2024
Possession order follows the summary judgment track.
Court order for possession.
Enforcement / insolvency pressure escalates from this order.
Watford case management
Judge Reissner orders on the set-aside / case management path.
Court management directions.
N244 / hearing path continues toward 29 Jan 2025.
N244; Freeths skeleton; CPR jurisdiction fight
Hearing on set-aside. Claimant counsel contacts judge outside court; asserts no power to revisit orders despite CPR 3.1(7).
Defendant: procedural unfairness, CPR powers, solicitor negligence. Claimant: no jurisdiction / wrong form.
Adverse order path; appeal follows.
Order vs what was said in court
Sealed order of 3 Feb 2025 alleged to diverge materially from the judgment given in the courtroom — critical for the Manchester winding-up risk.
Concern raised urgently to the court about the written order.
Order used in enforcement / insolvency pressure.
HHJ Middleton-Roy appeal order
Appeal order on the Watford judgment path.
Appeal determination recorded in sealed order.
Personal insolvency pressure continues from the underlying judgment debt theory.
Incorrect case number — procedural ground to stop petition
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.
Petitioner/virtual office correspondence about winding-up; admission of wrong service.
Bank freeze and hearing path follow despite defective service.
Trading strangled mid-dispute
Bosecom Ltd account frozen — operations halted while the underlying Flexspace judgment and counterclaim remain contested.
Bank acts on petition / insolvency pressure.
Company cannot trade normally; prejudice compounds.
Barrister counterclaim path; petition should wait
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.
Court needs link between petition debt and forfeiture/lease dispute for a stay.
Adjournments; evidence packs assembled for Simon / Manchester track.
Evidence of forfeiture/lease link required
Judge indicates stay needs evidence linking the petition to the forfeiture and lease dispute — exactly the evidenced lock-out / waiver / counterclaim story.
Court: show the connection or the petition proceeds.
Packs prepared; father’s medical emergency also drives adjournment context.
Compassionate adjournment context
Father dies after hospitalisation — relevant to adjournment / capacity to meet court deadlines under extreme pressure.
Compassionate grounds put before the court on the winding-up track.
Continued engagement with Watford applications despite bereavement.
Handed in person; June hearing attended
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.
Petitioner proceeds on personal judgment debt from Flexspace path.
Attendance in June 2025; no fixed new date given then.
Neither side attended; Luton 15:00 fixed
DDJ Fearnley: neither side attended; adjourned to 24 February 2026 15:00 Luton.
Order fixes the critical hearing date.
That order’s later email service becomes the notice failure.
administrator@bosecom.uk — not in use
Hearing order emailed to administrator@bosecom.uk only. That inbox was not being used — so no effective notice of 24 Feb 2026.
Cork correspondence attaches the Feb 2026 hearing order to the wrong channel.
No usable notice to Rob on a monitored address.
r.K.Bose@msn.com compromised from Nov 2025
Relisted date emailed to MSN inbox that was compromised and not usable — again no effective notice.
Cork → MSN with 24 Feb 2026 date.
Email not read; hearing proceeds without attendance.
Made without effective notice of the date
Luton bankruptcy order. Sealed order not received by email. Discovery later via mother’s post / OR contact.
Order made in absence on a date never effectively notified.
Annulment path under s.282(1)(a) prepared.
Proton contact; MSN rejected for OR
On learning of the order, Official Receiver contacted from proton. Steps taken while also dealing with theft crime and advice.
Disclosure: MSN compromised; use proton only for OR.
PIQB / forms / annulment pack work begins.
In-person Official Receiver interview
OR interview with disclosure pack emphasising service/notice failures and the Flexspace unfairness context.
Explain petition attendance vs later-date notice failure accurately.
Forms and evidence handed / discussed.
s.282(1)(a) pack ready
Court-facing annulment bundle: unfair personal SJ / no guarantor; ability to pay; no effective notice of 24 Feb 2026.
Three grounds for annulment, with sealed extracts and mailbox evidence.
Full bundle and summary PDFs issued.
PC Ahmed 26 Aug 2026 19:16 — investigation closing
Gold relevant to ability to clear the bankruptcy petition debt was stolen. Police crime reference 01/7876502/26. On Wednesday 26 August 2026 at 19:16 PC Ahmed emailed that the investigation was being sent for closure with no suspect identified; CCTV/witness/forensic lines exhausted; TFL bus CCTV not requested for retention by attending officers (10-day window).
PC Ahmed: investigated as far as reasonably possible; closing unless further evidence identifies a suspect; safety advice if contact with suspect/mother.
Preserve police email as Exhibit D1-class ability-to-pay / crime evidence for annulment under s.282(1)(a).
Bosecom was lost over a single witness statement from Tom Tyler of Flexspace No 2 LLP — given from Peterborough — while the Watford unit, the lock-outs, the police attendance, the rent accepted and refunded, and the lease breaches were all evidenced on the ground. Tyler's own statement puts him at Culley Court, Orton Southgate, Peterborough PE2 8WA. He never attended the Watford site while I had the evidence. The court path never gave that evidence a fair trial.
That is the whole case in one line: paper from Peterborough beat proof from Watford. Don't trust the system — evidence should matter.
The possession / trespass case that fed summary judgment, costs, winding-up pressure and personal bankruptcy rested on Tom Tyler's witness statement suite. He describes instructing LockFather and VPS from Flexspace's Peterborough registered office — not attending the Watford warehouse as the person with eyes on the unit day to day.
Tyler states he is an LLP member of Flexspace No 2 LLP of Unit 112, Culley Court, Orton Southgate, Peterborough PE2 8WA. The dispute premises were Unit 6 Park House, Greenhill Crescent, Watford. He never attended that Watford site while I held the contemporaneous evidence. Distance and role matter: the decisive narrative was written away from where the roof leaked, the steel sheet went up, the police attended, and the rent was paid then refunded.
Roof-leak photos and packs, lock-out videos and stills, police letter, bank screens of rent paid and refunded, Freeths correspondence, Joe Iannotta / Tyler emails, 'Flexspace breaks their own lease', lease with Guarantor NONE, and later Simon Sinnatt's Particulars of Claim for Bosecom v Flexspace. Judge Hunt had already pointed toward trial. Summary judgment with an absent solicitor cut that off.
Tyler WS → sealed claim → summary judgment (solicitor absent) → possession order → winding-up pressure / bank freeze → personal petition → bankruptcy order on a hearing date never effectively notified. A company and a director's solvency collapsed down a chain that never tested the Watford evidence against a remote statement.
Annulment ability-to-pay includes gold held at mother's address, later stolen. Police reference 01/7876502/26 — PC Ahmed email Wed 26 Aug 2026 19:16 closing the investigation with no suspect identified; notes TFL bus CCTV was not retained by attending officers (10-day retention). That evidence belongs in the bankruptcy annulment story, not as a footnote.
Not that documents are irrelevant — the opposite. The system treated evidence as optional when it was inconvenient. This site puts the evidence back in order so the mismatch is impossible to miss.
The system skipped the evidential fight Hunt had indicated. A Peterborough witness statement plus summary judgment with no solicitor present beat years of Watford proof. The CPR breaches below are how that happened.
Tom Tyler's statement from Peterborough drove the claim. He never attended the Watford site. Contemporaneous evidence (videos, police, bank refunds, lease breaches) was never given the trial Hunt contemplated.
Summary judgment after Hunt ordered trial, solicitor non-attendance, and ex parte contact with the judge cut across dealing with the case justly.
At the 29 Jan 2025 N244 hearing, claimant’s counsel asserted there was no power to revisit orders; the court adopted that incorrect framing.
N244 was accepted under CPR 3.10, then later treated as if N161 were required — contradicting the court’s own prior acceptance.
Delay driven by solicitor negligence. Real prospect of defence had already been recognised by Judge Hunt.
Genuine disputes of fact (lock-outs, rent accepted then refunded, no guarantor, unproven trespass) were not tried.
Lease: Guarantor NONE. Personal judgment via unevidenced trespass theory is procedurally improper.
Appeal deadline missed because the solicitor never advised of appeal/set-aside options.
Claimant counsel contacted Judge Gaunt outside court before 29 Jan 2025; acknowledged but not disclosed to the defendant.
Bosecom should not have been wound up on a debt path built from Tyler's remote witness statement — while Flexspace broke the lease, locked the unit twice, took then refunded rent, and sued for trespass only after we had left. The company had a Sinnatt claim pack and a full evidence set. Winding-up kills that redress.
The enforcement cascade that threatened winding-up started with Tyler's Peterborough WS from someone who never attended Watford — not a tried finding that the site evidence was false. Evidence should have mattered.
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.
Steel-sheet lock-out; rent paid same day; Freeths allege break-in. Grace period / notice fairness ignored.
May rent was paid and taken. A landlord who keeps rent after claiming the lease is dead waives a clean forfeiture.
June refunded first (£3,403.02). Flexspace then said the rent had been returned. Only after we stated that — and that April/May had not been returned — did they refund those two months (£6,896.40). Refunding only June first implied April/May were still on foot; the later two-month refund tried to shore up a 26 Apr story after we called it out.
Second lock-out inside the Clause 9.1 10-day period. Police: no legal notices. Video and photos prove it.
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.
Particulars of Counterclaim plead the landlord breaches and losses. Winding-up would kill Bosecom’s standing to pursue that claim — irreparable prejudice.
Incorrect winding-up case number served; petitioner admitted error; proper service still failed. Procedural ground alone to stop the petition.
Personal bankruptcy followed the same chain: a company-lease dispute decided without trying the site evidence against Tyler's remote statement, then a hearing date never effectively notified. Ability to pay includes gold later stolen — crime ref 01/7876502/26 (PC Ahmed 26 Aug 2026). Annulment is the correction.
Lease Guarantor: NONE. Personal bankruptcy from a company-lease judgment via unevidenced trespass is unfair.
Fearnley order emailed to unused administrator@; then to compromised MSN. Sealed order not received by email.
June 2025 hearing attended. The defect is notice of the adjourned Luton date that produced the order.
Annulment pack ability-to-pay includes gold at mother's address, later stolen. Police reference 01/7876502/26. PC Ahmed email Wednesday 26 August 2026 19:16: investigation closing, no suspect; TFL CCTV not retained. That is Exhibit D1-class material — bankruptcy is not necessary where the debt could be met and the Feb 2026 hearing was never effectively notified.
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.
This archive exists because the system preferred a remote witness statement over contemporaneous evidence from the Watford site. Every exhibit below is what should have been tried.
